Slashdot Log In
YouTube Bans Terrorist Training Videos
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Sep 12, 2008 07:07 AM
from the can't-say-that-here dept.
from the can't-say-that-here dept.
Virtual_Raider sends in an Australian news story that begins "Terrorist training videos will be banned from appearing on YouTube, under revised new guidelines being implemented by the popular video-sharing site. The Google-owned portal will ban footage that advertises terrorism or extremist causes and supporters of the change hope it will blunt al-Qaeda's strong media online campaign. The move comes after pressure... from Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman... [T]he new YouTube guidelines includes bans on videos that incite others to commit violent acts, videos on how to make bombs, and footage of sniper attacks."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
If this means.... (Score:5, Funny)
... no more Rick Roll videos, I am all for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As if anyone really could make out anything useful from YouTube videos. At least useful enough to be dangerous.
But maybe they will have to ban most of the videos then that are showing how people does blow things up.
I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
how they'll implement the checking. Do you think they'll check each video that's uploaded or do you think it'll be based on a trust system?
e.g.
[ ] This is a terrorist training video.
You'd check the box if you weren't sure. It'll make YouTube's life easier...
Nope. Routing (Score:5, Funny)
No, they'll just be using their routers. Packets for terrorist training videos, per RFC 3514 [faqs.org], will have their evil bit set.
Parent
Re:Nope. Routing (Score:5, Funny)
The Evil bit is meant for packets and routers, not for entire files/streams, read the document you linked!
However, I understand your general idea, and expansion of the Evil Bit could be the Evil Byte for IPv6, and be made mandatory in any file system.
8-bits
1 - Evil ( Must be set to 1 if )
2 - Partially Evil ( must be set to 1 if part of a greater evil, even if not evil in itself)
4 - Dangerous ( must be set to 1 if contents has potential to kill, destroy or otherwise cause harm)
8 - Terrorist ( must be set to 1 if Terrorist, wrongful 0 will give sender "Unlawful Combatant"-status)
16- Offensive ( must be set to 1 if an average American Housewife of Evangelical denomination will take offense by the contents)
32- Copyright Infringement( must be set to 1 if the content infringes on intellectual property rights )
64- [reserved for future use]
128 - Humour Bit (must not be set to 1, security is no joke!)
Parent
oops (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, i failed at setting the humour bit correctly, it should of course be zero at all times.
Parent
Monkey bars (Score:4, Funny)
They find the terrorist training videos by using a sophisticated algorithm that can recognize any image of monkey bars.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It could be fun, like playing online minesweeper.
Do a search for terrorist videos and try to identify all of them.
Careful not to tread on a rickroll though.
Next up, censoring "backup tools" (Score:5, Interesting)
See how long it takes for them to censor videos on howto run homebrew tools on Wii/Xbox/PS/DS/Pandora...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly not hacking, but what constitutes terrorism tomorrow? Will they start banning videos that talk about presidential candidates poorly? I mean, we can't have people inciting hateful thoughts about a candidate. That would be terrorist. What about killing animals? Joe Bob Moonshine is all proud of his deer hunting expedition and decided to post videos of it for others that might be interested. Will these fall under "sniper videos"? How about all the videos of US soldiers sniping foreigners with
Counter productive.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This just adds a bit of legitimacy to their cause. Now they can rightfully claim that they are being persecuted and censored. This is the same as what happens in parts of Europe where all things related to Nazis and Hilter are banned.
It just drives it underground and gives it more street cred. If these things are out in the open it is a lot easier to keep tabs on and to criticize it which in turn makes it more likely that people will see it for the bullshit it really is.
What ever the problem, censorship is almost never the answer.
Re:Counter productive.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you and my question for those who might disagree with you is this:
How is this different from what Google did in China at the behest of the Chinese government?
"Oh w-w-w-ait! Th-th-th-that's different!"
Sorry. No, it's not.
Censorship is censorship. Just because you don't agree with something someone says doesn't make it not censorship to silence them and it doesn't make it right.
Parent
I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. I'm in Germany, where nazi things are as forbidden as it can possibly get, but I'm not aware of neo-nazis having much street cred or too many people thinking of them as freedom fighters. From the limited and flawed sample I have, it seems to me like there are more neo-nazis, white-supremacists and the like per capita in the USA where it's not forbidden.
Bear in mind that most of Europe has been fucked up hard by WW2. You yanks know WW2 as this war that happened somewhere else, you had a one or two hundred thousand soldiers total, and generally it mostly happened to somewhere else. Here it's a lot closer to home. Germany got not only to lose over 5.5 million soldiers in the war and over 1.5 million civillians in the firebombings, but got to deal with the whole Gestapo and all first hand. There are familes who've had a member or two gassed by Hitler just because they had some chronic disease when that eugenics program was tried.
Now there _are_ a few nostalgiacs about that time, and a few trolls posing as neo-nazis, but on the whole there just isn't that much reason to pine for those times. Which would kind of be required for them to have any significant amount of "street cred."
Germany largely went pacifist and socialist after the war, mostly as a result of still remembering the war and the far-right dictatorship. (Not unlike the USA went pacifist after WW1, but without the isolationism aspect.)
Other countries have even less reasons to cheer for it. France has been bombed by us in one direction, and then by the Allies on the way back. I haven't done a poll there, so I might be talking out the arse, but I don't think many of them pine for those times. And forbidding nazi symbols and the like, doesn't seem to have made people pine for those times more.
Now there seems to be a signifficant amount of French nationalism, but really that's actually mis-labelled. France's "nationalism" and "right wing" aren't as much about nation or race, as about language and culture. The theme doesn't seem as much "go home if you're not white or French" as "go home if you don't freaking want to learn French." In a lot of countries that wouldn't even be considered "nationalism" or "right wing", but rather the baseline as expectations go.
Just about the only countries where racism and nationalism have made a come-back are in the former Eastern Bloc. But there it's not forbidden, so you can't blame it on that.
Finally, note that it's somewhat misleading to paint it as Europe forbidding it _all_ or that it's not allowed to talk about it in the open. We still have documentaries, books about it, and learn history in schools, ya know? So, yes, it is very much possible "to keep tabs on and to criticize it which in turn makes it more likely that people will see it for the bullshit it really is". Most of it, at least. All that's forbidden is nazi propaganda/hate-speech and, depending on the country, the sale or public display of crooked crosses and other nazi symbols.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You yanks know WW2 as this war that happened somewhere else, you had a one or two hundred thousand soldiers total, and generally it mostly happened to somewhere else.
We actually lost over 400,000 in that war :) Over 13 million were in the armed forces fighting. It's true that we didn't have a significant number of civilian deaths, but it wasn't a small fight by any measure.
Still, no one compares to Russia, who lost like 13 or 14% of their total population. Even Germany didn't have that bad of a time of it.
Most of the rest of your post I agree with, but I would point out that you've given the ability to restrict speech to your government. While it doesn't seem to have be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Today, it's Nazi paraphernalia... tomorrow, well, who gets to decide? Whoever is in charge? Because frankly that's a bit scary - though maybe just to me as an American because extremists often have a lot of pull in our politics (though thankfully not so much this election cycle).
I think that points to a trait that is strongly American - distrust of government, no matter who's in power. From what I've heard, other nations don't suffer from this as much. It's possibly one of the reasons why our politics go so horribly wrong - because the voter base as a whole is schizophrenic. :)
Not that I disagree with your distrust in authority, but I think other countries may have a little less of that paranoia.
Who makes the determination of "extremist"? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Google-owned portal will ban footage that advertises terrorism or extremist causes and supporters of the change hope it will blunt al-Qaeda's strong media online campaign.
So who makes the determination what constitutes "extremist"? Would this guy [youtube.com] be an extremist because he stands up for what he believes in while fighting what he believes are the US' illegal search and seizures on US soil?
I'm sure the government thinks he's an extremist -- will Google?
And... (Score:5, Insightful)
But how does youtube define "Terrorists"
Enemies of the USA? (Banning Islamic military videos)
Enemies of Islam?(Banning USA military videos)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Donnie and Marie Osmond clips.
I find Marie Osmond to be very offensive you insensitive clod!
Too
Many
Teeth...
Finally, we're winning the battle against terr'r! (Score:5, Funny)
Truly, comrade, this is a day of glorious victory!
We have cleansed al-Qaeda's videos from Youtube and have set their agents fleeing! While some may hide their terroristic videos on liveleak or any of these websites [wikipedia.org], the days of the insurgency and radical Muslim warriors are at an end!
God Bless the USA!
Maybe a dumb question, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Is this really necessary?
Yes. YouTube was lousy with the stuff. You could find the stuff without much effort.
>...this just sounds kind of like a silly policy that states the obvious.
It should have been obvious, but it wasn't. This actually is a major policy change for Google. And it isn't like they had a leg to stand on, because they DO censor YouTube already. Ask anybody who has ever posted a politically incorrect video, especially one critical of the Islamic terrorists, about how open Google i
How long until Scientology abuses this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I give it a day or two before Scientology starts augmenting its fraudulent DMCA takedown notices, adding the charge that its critics are "extremists" and thus worthy of censorship.
Use the force... (Score:5, Funny)
They're not going to ban Jedi training videos as well, are they? After all, they're part of the rebellion.
Anarchists weep (Score:4, Funny)
No More Mythbusters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, a bomb is fuel, oxidizer, and a containment vessel. Technically, the propane tank on your barbecue grill counts as a "bomb" in the right context.
When outlaw videos are outlawed... (Score:5, Insightful)
...then only outlaws will have outlaw videos.
One man's terrorist... (Score:4, Insightful)
...is another man's freedom fighter. The speed that politics moves, I wouldn't want to have to be the guy who chooses what's allowed and what's not. Who knows which groups the next president of the USA considers to be "evil terrorists" or "democracy loving freedom fighters".
Time to take down those MLK videos... (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to take down those videos of MLK and his agitators espousing mass chaos and social disruption with his guerrilla warfare tactic of "civil disobedience." That's the trouble with banning terrorists or the "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" line. People/government have an annoying tendency to re-define "terrorist" and "wrong." What else can we ban? If not MLK, then what about Malcolm X? The NRA? The National Organization of Women for their support of mass-murder, err I mean abortion?
I'd rather put up with a million KKK or terrorist videos just to make sure the next MLK, Ghandi, or societal conscience can be heard. Isn't that the real point behind the Freedom of Speech?
Free speech is simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't ban others speech. Speak better than them.
Censorship is an act of desperation on the part of a losing ideology... and I hardly think that's applicable here.
Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
I realise saying good to censorship is often seen as taboo on Slashdot, but I do not think this is about whether YouTube should or shouldn't censor anymore, that decision was made long ago so I don't think this is a question of whether to censor or not to censor anymore.
I say good because as the decision to censor YouTube has long been set in stone it's also long been clear that there is a horrific bias in the censorship there. Pro-scientology propaganda is allowed but anti-scientology propaganda regularly gets removed. Pro-islamic extremism propaganda has long been allowed yet any anti-Islamic propaganda has often been removed.
I must make this clear, I absolutely don't advocate anti-Islamic propaganda because I think it only serves to increase hatred between factions and incite the whole situation but what I did think utterly stank is that anti-Western propaganda was allowed to flourish whilst the alternate and opposing extreme, anti-Islamic propaganda was removed as offence. I find it worrying that the burning of a Koran has up until now been classified by YouTube as more offensive than the sniping in the head of a US soldier.
This is at least a good first step towards sanity, if YouTube can balance it's pro-Scientology slant by reinstating anti-Scientology videos or outright removing pro and anti-Scientology videos then the service will be a lot more respectable.
It's still not ideal of course because as this was pushed through by a screaming politician it's still all about who shouts the loudest. At least both sides are shouting loud enough for YouTube to impose an equal policy on the matter now though on this issue at least.
if i were the government (Score:3, Insightful)
i'd leave the videos up, and have google regularly feed me the ips of whomever watches them
the videos will be gotten, youtube or not
so it is far better for youtube to function as a honeypot, rather than not to have any value at all
of course 99% of viewers will be harmless curious dorks. its the datamining correlation with activity on a given ip address that is of interest for homing in on that 1%
So just who gets to define what terrorism means? (Score:5, Insightful)
And it seems to me that psychological terrorism could apply to an interesting range of things-- an al-Qaeda rant or an "evil empire" or veiled "all our options are on the table" rant from an American president for example.
I am betting no (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Christian terrorists? (Score:5, Informative)
I hope you aren't trying to lump them in with many of us who are pro-life and condemn those actions - particularly when we're in the extreme vast majority of pro-lifers.
Parent
Anti Abortion "terrorism" defeated (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break, when was the last time you heard of a clinic getting bombed? It was a handful of nut jobs, and they are in prison. Clinton tightened the regulations on distance from the clinic, and protests kind of faded. They have adopted less confrontational approaches.
It probably feels good to go on Slashdot and compare Christians to Al Qaeda, you could go diary on Daily Kos and get told how wonderful you are, but it would be the same BS as here.
There is zero comparison between people protesting an abortion clinic and some people going too far than an organized movement to kill civilians haphazardly to advance a political agenda.
On some level you have to realize that the "internal justification" of the anti-abortion murderers is their belief that they are preventing murder, while the Islamist Terrorists are pursuing an agenda of despotism and establishing a Caliphate military dictatorship. The former are targeting the specific people that they believe are currently in the process of taking a life (in the view of the actor), the latter are looking to kill or maim as many as possible.
Not justifying the abortion clinic attacks, just suggesting that the actions were at least targeted at preventing what they consider a wrong, while the terrorists we are fighting are NOT targeted at preventing a wrong (I'd suggest that their attacks on our troops aren't terrorism, just asymmetrical warfare, our troops are a valid military target, for that reason I'm hard pressed to classify the hit on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack since it's a military target)... they may have a goal that they believe in, but their methodology is simply evil.
Parent
Re:Anti Abortion "terrorism" defeated (Score:5, Insightful)
Not justifying the abortion clinic attacks, just suggesting that the actions were at least targeted at preventing what they consider a wrong, while the terrorists we are fighting are NOT targeted at preventing a wrong (I'd suggest that their attacks on our troops aren't terrorism, just asymmetrical warfare, our troops are a valid military target, for that reason I'm hard pressed to classify the hit on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack since it's a military target)... they may have a goal that they believe in, but their methodology is simply evil.
Actually, yes, the terrorists are preventing a wrong, at least in their own minds.
In their minds, we, the United States, along with our allies, are occupying their Holy Lands of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. From what they believe, Israel is a puppet of the U.S. government. To some extent, that might actually be true -- we have, in fact, supplied and trained their military, and we did lobby for the creation and international recognition of Israel as an indepdendent state following World War II.
As far as these Islamic terrorists are concerned, we are enemies of their God, no different than how the abortion doctors are viewed as enemies of YOUR God.
It is all the same, if you'd sit back and look at it objectively.
Parent
Re:Anti Abortion "terrorism" defeated (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence [wikipedia.org]
and my argument (that seems to be lost of some folks) is that a wacko is a wacko regardless of which extremist organization they belong to.
Re:Lieberman The US Traitor (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, because Israel, a loyal US Ally/Satellite that has advanced US Agenda in the mideast, and contained its military operations to self defense, should be abandoned because an artificial liberation movement has become the latest leftist craze. The people in the disputed territories are in a crappy situation, which Israel HAS been attempting to negotiate a solution for. However, the Arab world's insistence on arming them to the teeth and paying them to die, plus keeping 3 generations of people in "refugee camps" instead of settling them (roughly the same number of Jews were kicked out of Arab countries as Arabs that fled Israel during the 1948 War) like Israel settled the Jews the Arabs kicked out, has prevented a solution.
Arafat the Egyptian embraced lefty rhetoric and style, so like Castro, became seen as a darling of the left who love dictators if they embrace "revolution." The fact that their aid dollars went to his corrupt regime and killing civilian Jews mattered way less than their embrace of a "freedom fighter." The fact that he also used the resources to systematically terrorize Arab Christians probably also ingratiated himself to the secular left.
The amount of land in dispute is TRIVIAL, except to Israel that is in physical danger without it. Emotional attachment aside, financial compensation to the displaced Arabs, including purchasing them land in nearby Arab nations, would have been WAY CHEAPER than the current disaster of a policy.
So keep spewing hateful ignorance, and be prepared to lose to the silent majority in two months, because you guys are irrational and crazy.
Parent
Re:Lieberman The US Traitor (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because Israel, a loyal US Ally/Satellite that has advanced US Agenda in the mideast,...
Huh? Unless the US agenda is supporting Israel, I'm not really seeing it. Certainly, if the USA agenda were to be reducing terrorist attacks on the USA then Israel is working directly against that goal.
...and contained its military operations to self defense,...
If what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is "self-defense" then what Apartheid South Africa did to black people was also "self-defense".
...should be abandoned because an artificial liberation movement has become the latest leftist craze.
How is it "artificial" or "liberation" or even "leftist"? The most common viewpoint I've seen is that Israel should not discriminate or promote segregation.
The people in the disputed territories are in a crappy situation, which Israel HAS been attempting to negotiate a solution for.
Like by continu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US decided it needed your house for its defence, gave you some cash and told you to get out, and go live with your fellow Christians at the closest YMCA, would you consider that an acceptable offer?
If you were a squatter in someone else's house and they gave you money to leave and go live with your fellow X among the Xian lands, you would really need to be grateful they didn't just kick your ass.
Except wait, it appears you tried to fight to keep the proper owner out and got your ass kicked anyway. Too bad for you.
Boo Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech means freedom for everyone. Yes this includes and is not restricted to; Terrorists, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, stalkers, bomb makers, nazis and holocaust deniers.
I do not have to apologise for saying these people have a right to speak. You need to apologise for suggesting that they should not have that right.
If you want rights for some and not for others, go live in Saudi Arabia or China or Russia. But of you right rights for all the people, then you need to stand up for those rights no matter who they are taken from.
Parent
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:5, Informative)
"Freedom of Speech" does not mean that you or anybody else is forced to tolerate some asshole mouthing off in your own living room, or even for that matter mouthing off in a public space (which is the only place where the law applies) if in doing so they are breaking other laws (e.g the classic shouting "fire" for no reason in a crowded theatre).
YouTube is a private company and, thankfully, has just as much right to pick and choose what you're allowed to say in it's "home" as you do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sites like Google and Yahoo are blurring the line between private communication channels and public channels. They are fast becoming essential tools for public communication, and the nation has a growing interest in protecting them in the same way it protects the mail, the press, the telephone, and plain old speech. There is precedent for the government forcing private communications companies to keep their channels free, and at some point we should consider doing the same for these websites.
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be kidding me... a utility?
Youtube is a unregulated for-profit website that depends on advertiser revenue.... what obligation do they have to carry any kind of content?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have anything to do with that (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter whether you're American or not. Freedom of speech is an ideological high ground, and accepted by most people to be a good thing(tm). This isn't about terrorists not having rights, it's about people not having the right to terrorize. Your freedoms stop at the point where they start to encroach on someone else's liberty.
I believe in protecting freedom of speech, but I also agree with youtube's decision to remove terrorist training videos and instructions on making bombs. No one benefits
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL - you funny man!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes common sense, uncommon thought it may be, just has to prevail...
and we're still waiting...