EU's Attempt to Make Posting Make-a-Bomb Instructions a Criminal Offense: Is it Just Dumb?

[makc]

It have recently come to my attention that, following its infamous tradition of copying american legal standarts, EU attemts to make posting make-a-bomb instructions on the web into a criminal offense. The father of idea was quoted with saying smth along the line, "posting ideas dangerous to society cannot be allowed".

In my humble opinion, this is just dumb beyond the reason. Should we also ban chemistry classes, so that no one would be able to read $$C_{3}H_{5}(OH)_{3} + 3HNO_{3} + 6H_{2}SO_{4} = C_{3}H_{5}(NO_{3}){3} + 3H_{2}O + 6H_{2}SO_{4}$$?

All that given people can legally buy a shotgun in these countries? How explosives are different from gun powder? Sure, they have licensing and stuff. But, I can make a bomb out of, say, a handful of nails, bottle of water, cork, immersion heater, duct tape, and electric power source, that would cause serious injuries, I think. Shall we require a license to buy nails and water from now on, too?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It doesn't matter it's impossible to ban anything from the internet really, weed it out somewhere and it'll appear somewhere else.

Fact is anyone can make a bomb out of readily available household materials, not a lot you can really do to stop someone who wants to do so, not internet wise anyway.

In fact you can find out how to make a nuclear bomb on line too, however getting hold of the fissile material may prove an obstacle to budding terrorist organisations or rogue states.

 

[lalbatros]

Anyway it is too late now ... since Hiroshima.

 

[ank_gl]

does banning something over internet mean anything? do you really think people will stop that way??

 

[Mallignamius]

If they do find a way to eliminate access to that information, I suppose the terrorists could go back to flying planes into buildings. (If not one way, than another.)

 

[makc]

does banning something over internet mean anything?

Years in prison?

 

[ice109]

Years in prison?

do you have any idea the logistics in enforcing this law? how much time and money it would take imprison one n00b for this let alone someone who does not want to be found?

besides i don't see what the point is. how many people can construct a nuke from poor instructions?

 

[NeoDevin]

It's not just nukes, but other sorts of bombs including mines, pipe bombs, dirty bombs etc. While I agree in principle with restricting this sort of information, it isn't practically possible. There will always be other sources of informations, and if nothing else is available, you're just forcing terrorists to be a little more creative. They will come up with some sort of bomb, even if it's not one on the internet.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Also anyone can get an education in chemistry at almost any country in the world. And since Universities are prime recruiting ground for terrorists they wouldn't need to necessarily go on line. They could simply recruit a chemist who could then explain in detail how to make Nitro glycerin from basic ingredients. And then stabilise it as TNT. So even if you could stop the information from getting out, which you can't, you can't stop education from happening or people from getting info from other sources. If you ask me this idea is woefully inadequate and is a placebo.

Whilst it's still legal and freely available, I hope potential lunatics are taking notes :-

Mentor note: SD proved his point, but we would rather it not be described in detail here. Suffice it to say, a popular and readily available site was used to obtain the information he provided.

 

[ank_gl]

Quoted text removed by Moonbear.
should SCHRODINGER be banned?? now anyone can make a dyanamite and kill us all:rofl::rofl:

 

[makc]

do you have any idea the logistics in enforcing this law? how much time and money it would take imprison one n00b for this let alone someone who does not want to be found?

whatever you might think, it actually happens to many people, for example http://www.out-law.com/page-3788 (search more - find more)

 

[ice109]

whatever you might think, it actually happens to many people, for example http://www.out-law.com/page-3788 (search more - find more)

granted that is injustice in its own right, that is not just simply posting information on how to make a bomb. if i put up a site called makeabombdotcom with no political affiliation of any sort i highly doubt i would get in trouble. hence the wiki article

 

[makc]

as for wiki articles above, making explosives and making a bomb is not exactly the same; this one is far more amusing (though I doubt anyone can actually build anything with these "instructions" only).

 

[ice109]

as for wiki articles above, making explosives and making a bomb is not exactly the same; this one is far more amusing (though I doubt anyone can actually build anything with these "instructions" only).

you're right but essentially my point is that they can make all the laws they want but it will never quell the spread of information

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

as for wiki articles above, making explosives and making a bomb is not exactly the same; this one is far more amusing (though I doubt anyone can actually build anything with these "instructions" only).

Actually the timing device is probably a lot easier to make than Nitroglycerine, which frankly unless you know what your doing could lead to serious injury or death. in fact I bet someone with a basic high school education in electronics could make a timer, I know I could and all I have is a GCSE in electronics which I gained at 16. Few capacitors, some resistors a battery and so on, yeah I bet I could knock something simple up in no time, I mean let's say I want a 30 minute delay, how hard do you think that is to do? Now programmable timers, but more tricky but if you have a plan do you really need them?

Also suicide bombers are not really worried about timer devices, preferring to set themselves off.

 

[ice109]

Actually the timing device is probably a lot easier to make than Nitroglycerine, which frankly unless you know what your doing could lead to serious injury or death. in fact I bet someone with a basic high school education in electronics could make a timer, I know I could and all I have is a GCSE in electronics which I gained at 16. Few capacitors, some resistors a battery and so on, yeah I bet I could knock something simple up in no time, I mean let's say I want a 30 minute delay, how hard do you think that is to do? Now programmable timers, but more tricky but if you have a plan do you really need them?

Also suicide bombers are not really worried about timer devices, preferring to set themselves off.

why would you need to make anything, i could think of a lot of already made devices with internal timers that could as triggers

 

[ice109]

lol this thread is getting way out of hand.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

why would you need to make anything, i could think of a lot of already made devices with internal timers that could as triggers

On their own? You'd still require the timer to set off a voltage surge. But believe me timers are fairly simple electronic devices anyway, particularly if you don't need it to be programmable. Simply insert the battery and retire to a safe country. I genuinely think that if you asked any person in the UK, with a reasonable level of intelligence to make a time bomb, give them a week and they could do it, some people with or without the internet.

 

[ice109]

On their own? You'd still require the timer to set off a voltage surge. But believe me timers are fairly simple electronic devices anyway, particularly if you don't need it to be programmable. Simply insert the battery and retire to a safe country. I genuinely think that if you asked any person in the UK, with a reasonable level of intelligence to make a time bomb, give them a week and they could do it, some people with or without the internet.

what i meant is that i wouldn't need to design any circuits, i could just use something like an alarm clock. hell you could go analog and a cigarette that burns down slowly and lights a fuse.

 

[baywax]

that's a really biased articlethat's pretty irrelevant. what is and isn't social responsible is a matter of opinion.

Generally, in a society, the opinion of the majority rules. The majority of the socially responsible members of a society do not want to see their children's hands blown off, property damage or unnecessary injuries. Just ask a majority of Iraqi citizens (to name one society).

Mentor note: quoted text is from posts that were removed as follow-up to an inappropriate post. There was no clear-cut place to stop deleting replies to not disrupt the rest of the thread...apologies to those who have done nothing wrong but whose posts needed to be removed to clean up.

 

[ice109]

Generally, in a society, the opinion of the majority rules. The majority of the socially responsible members of a society do not want to see their children's hands blown off, property damage or unnecessary injuries. Just ask a majority of Iraqi citizens (to name one society).

i don't see your point? that still doesn't validate the majority's opinion.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Generally, in a society, the opinion of the majority rules. The majority of the socially responsible members of a society do not want to see their children's hands blown off, property damage or unnecessary injuries. Just ask a majority of Iraqi citizens (to name one society).

Oh yeah I agree the safety and welfare of citizens are of paramount importance in making laws; but I think in this case it doesn't make any difference; anyone who wants to use this information is going to get hold of it anyway, regardless, for the reasons given earlier; the internet is somewhat unpoliceable. So in effect although the law sounds morally sound, it is in effect a worthless law.

 

[baywax]

Oh yeah I agree the safety and welfare of citizens are of paramount importance in making laws; but I think in this case it doesn't make any difference; anyone who wants to use this information is going to get hold of it anyway, regardless, for the reasons given earlier; the internet is somewhat unpoliceable. So in effect although the law sounds morally sound, it is in effect a worthless law.

Generally I would think that all laws are worthless unless they have practical and practical social applications and they are understood to be useful by the individual as well as society. The formation and utilization of an effective educational system that promotes universal values (such as not blowing each other up or each other's property up), can and has helped form the foundation for this kind of cooperation. Any opinion to the contrary is misguided and, as is examplified today around the world, counter-productive for everyone... (with the acception of specific minorities who benefit from this sort of activity)

The flip side of this is that anyone downloading "blow-em up real good" information is under scrutiny or will be should something "terrifying" take place in their vicinity.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Generally I would think that all laws are worthless unless they have practical and practical social applications and they are understood to be useful by the individual as well as society. The formation and utilization of an effective educational system that promotes universal values (such as not blowing each other up or each other's property up), can and has helped form the foundation for this kind of cooperation. Any opinion to the contrary is misguided and, as is examplified today around the world, counter-productive for everyone... (with the acception of specific minorities who benefit from this sort of activity)

People in the know, ie terrorist organisations have this information and have had it for decades, it's not exactly new exciting information. I'm sure most people can see that making sites that advertise this information illegal, is worthless unless the whole internet is censored, which is impossible, anyone with even the most remedial of PC knowledge knows this.

As has been graphically demonstrated, I can find this information on wiki, and should I want to make a bomb I'm pretty sure I could find this information on many web sites. In this specific case it is a placebo to calm: well the masses or idiots, and does little to change the threat; let's face it terrorists, recidivists and your common or garden malcontents can still find this information and do and always will be able to.

Now we can argue that this strong policy sends a message that such actions are wrong, but only a retard does not know that building bombs is wrong, so the message itself is redundant, it's an example of knee-jerk lawmaking and frankly it's worthless.

The flip side of this is that anyone downloading "blow-em up real good" information is under scrutiny or will be should something "terrifying" take place in their vicinity.

This is a good point, by policing such sites and not banning them you create a list of people who have left a trail to themselves. Again this is a placebo, I don't think anyone with any sense about the internet will consider this anything more than hollow lawmaking.

But let's get to the policing that actually has an effect, it is better to leave this information available, as it is anyway, because people are flagged by the sites hits, in the same way someone who buys large amounts of sulphuric acid and nitric acid without good reason is flagged or a large amount of fertiliser.

 

[mgb_phys]

As someone on a British news site said - it's a good job we didn't have the internet 30 years ago. We could have had real problems if the IRA had learned how to make bombs!

 

[baywax]

But let's get to the policing that actually has an effect, it is better to leave this information available, as it is anyway, because people are flagged by the sites hits, in the same way someone who buys large amounts of sulphuric acid and nitric acid without good reason is flagged or a large amount of fertiliser.

Everytime someone checks out the Drano® site they're flagged as a threat to toilets (and fish) everywhere.

Its simple.
Teach people well.
Otherwise its like saying "gee, we could have put brakes on that train instead of figuring out a way to stop it now."

 

[ank_gl]

geez, how many terrorists, do you think, ll refer to wiki or any other site or so, to make a bomb?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well not large terrorist groups, they'll just recruit an expert to train them generally like the IRA did. But common or garden mad loners, like the Uni bomber might. Anyway let's just say that the internet is not the source of information preferé for the worlds more discriminating psychotic lunatics.

 

[mgb_phys]

But common or garden mad loners, like the Uni bomber might.

Thats the advantage of the internet. Instead of going to the library and finding accurate information in the Encylopedia Britannica or the American chmeical society handbook he will get something from some Slashdot poster and probably blow himself up - or will get so depressed trawling through the posts of drooling idiot conspiracy theorists he will deliberately blow himself up - or he will get distracted by the latest pics of Paris Hilton he will forget about it.
The main purpose of the internet is to distract people from doing any real work - why shouldn't this also apply to mad loners!

 

[ank_gl]

or he will get distracted by the latest pics of Paris Hilton he will forget about it.

lolzzzz, more than 90% of the world use internet for that reason only:rofl::rofl:

 

[Moonbear]

This is a moderation note:
The topic of discussion, namely legislation of content on the internet, is certainly allowed here. However, please refrain from giving specific examples or "how-to" advice. That is not the subject of the thread, and whether others appreciate the irony or not, we already prohibit discussion of dangerous/illegal acts on this site. We do not want anyone getting hurt trying something at home that they shouldn't, and we don't want the legal problems that could ensue from having such acts available on our site. There is no reason to describe specific recipes/acts in order to discuss this topic.

 

[baywax]

This is a moderation note:
The topic of discussion, namely legislation of content on the internet, is certainly allowed here. However, please refrain from giving specific examples or "how-to" advice. That is not the subject of the thread, and whether others appreciate the irony or not, we already prohibit discussion of dangerous/illegal acts on this site. We do not want anyone getting hurt trying something at home that they shouldn't, and we don't want the legal problems that could ensue from having such acts available on our site. There is no reason to describe specific recipes/acts in order to discuss this topic.

Sorry about the cleaning instructions I gave in this thread. They are a fictitious and tougue-in-cheek look at what happened, by accident, in a Texas home some years ago... completely by accident. Kind of a Murphy's Law thingy.

 

[mgb_phys]

Sorry about the cleaning instructions I gave in this thread. They are a fictitious

My wife claims that any man entering a bathroom with cleaning products is doing it by accident.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Sure I see your point MB, although to be frank anyone who tried to make high explosives outside of a lab or without proper safety equipment and with only those instructions, would no doubt blow the hell out of himself/herself, but then I guess that's the point.

Don't make high explosives at home kids.

As an example Alfred Nobel lost his younger brother and several other workers in an explosion at his factory, and there were several other explosions during it's existence.

 

[ank_gl]

today when i was seeing some news channel, there was a debate going on the availability of all the plans of all major places in the state, like the place of prime minister and the president and all others, on http://wikimapia.org/. these things were also available on google earth. Title of the debate was "can terrorists use this??"
so how much dangerous are "wikimapia or google earth"??
should they be banned??