08/01/96-08/07/96: Bomb Plans on the Net

As web surfers celebrate victory over the Communications Decency Act, people around the world are mourning the casualties of the Olympic bombing and the TWA 800 explosion. Bomb plans are freely available on the Internet. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced a bill that would ban bomb making info from the Net. What should take precedence, free speech or national security? Are they mutually exclusive?

For other past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

formicacid: My freedom of speech is worth my life and is worth the lives of my loved ones. I want my kids to grow up in a safe place, but not if they are going to be limited in said safe place.

Yes, I freak whenever I hear of banning of any sort. This is b/c I have learned from history and know how totalitarian regimes have come about.

I lived half my life waiting for the next bomb to go off (El Salvador, 1980's). during that time I also had to watch what I said (too many "desaparecidos"). It was b/c of this experience that I decided nothing will make me give up my freedom of speech.

But if Dianne does get the law to pass, tell her to add on some more taxes on tea.

buch1: Just go to your local public library or a book store to get bomb plans. The information is out there. The Internet does not make it any easier to get. If a person is on the Internet, he most likely has access to other resources that would allow him to find similar information. If you want it, you can get it. Just because you can get it, does not mean, you will use it. Is the publisher responsible for the use of information? That would be like saying that John, Mark, Peter, Matthew, and the other Apostles are responsible for the Spanish inquisition. I don't think so.

rjnerd: Somebody should sit the Senator down and not let her leave until she demonstrated understanding of the first amendment.

Go look at the CNN web page, you will find a fine set of bomb making instructions there. (they ran a backgrounder on pipe bombs, and USAToday had a drawing showing the "fuse" arrangements of the Atlanta device)

I learned about things that go bang from a chemistry textbook (late 60's they hadn't built the net then). It was formerly the property of a local public high school. (printed in 1951, looks like it was used until the Sputnik triggered major rework of science texts)

Looking at some of the markings in the book (underline, the book was used pre-highlighter) It was clear that not only were public funds expended on teaching bomb making to minors, but that calculating the reaction energy was expected to be on the final exam.

Almost all the media references seems to indicate that the net is the source for the bomb plans. Yet there is little evidence for this. Even if the net is a more convienent place to find the information, there are many times more library cards, or old chemistry textbooks out there than even the most optomistic estimates of the population of the net. Certainly the most recent crop of high profile alledged bomb maker arrests (Kaczynski, McVeigh, the "militia" in Arizona) appear to have used printed references, and not the net. (the unabomber started mailing their bombs before the net had such information on it.)

Twinfinity: Has Senator Feinstein considered that we might have a right to know how to make a bomb? Bombs are not only for "Evil" acts -- one man's "terrorism" is another's "freedom fighting." Not at all to mention the unenforceability of such a law on a global network.

For all its silliness, the Anarchist's Cookbook delivers the message: "Look -- if you ever have to defend yourself against a hostile force, you have the tools and you can use them effectively." This sort of knowledge is defense in itself, too, even when you're not the one assembling the bombs -- when you learn how to make one, you can learn how to stop one (as well as possible). Better smart and armed than ignorant and vulnerable -- though that doesn't make for an easily shepherded populace, does it.

andreamer: Nothing should be banned from the net. Besides, it's impossible to ban stuff from the net. It just can't be done. And if anyone wants to make a bomb, the net is far from the only place to find out how.

grok: Sen. Feinstein has demonstrated her ignorance on so many subjects, should we be surprised by additional evidence that she introduces legislation before engaging her brain? From the assault weapons ban, to making bombs, to the First Amendment, to basic computer technology.... When will the people of California hold her accountable for her ignorance?

When will people learn that the gunpowder 'genie' cannnot be put back into the bottle over 2,000 years after it's discovery????

sophieD: Well...let's see, if they ban this information on the net it would boost library attendance, and put books in circulation rather than have them sit on shelves...so yeah, sure, ban that info on to getting the info where they got it before: their local library.

baydolph: I do not think it should be made available to anyone how to make bombs or to show how to make them- or make threats of bombs, available on the internet.... Also, I have a strong feeling that the newspapers should not print how to make them either.

I lost two of my good friends on TWA one was the pilot flying over and the second one was the one that was to bring it back.

The pilot that was flying was to retire on the following Monday....

Mur: If the information on the Internet "caused" the bombings, then what "caused" the countless bombings before the Internet was created? Bombs do not rely on the Internet. We might as well stop selling pipe bomb parts, but the construction companies might have something to say about that.

rjnerd: Baydolf...
It is just too late to regulate such information. there isn't anything particularly intellectually challenging about putting powder in a hunk of pipe, and attaching a fuse. Trying to restrict access to powder runs squarely into the 2nd amendment lobby. (hell, they don't even want the stuff tagged)
Gunpowder is quite simple to make, and higher yield explosives are actually easier (gasoline or propane vapors plus a spark). We do have to take steps to keep it off airplanes, but we can't keep people ignorant of how to make it.
I repeat, you see lots of noise about bomb information on the net, but the evidence shows that none of the high profile bomb makers got their information from the net. It is also clear that many of the people making the biggest noise about the "problem" of net distribution of information, are not part of this community.
Net use is still a "minority" activity, even the most optimistic estimates are less than 10% (far more people have microwave ovens).
Yes, it is a problem that bomb making books can be found on the net. It isn't related to the subject however. The problem it illustrates is the very low regard held of copyright on the net.

AlMiller: Congress just won't leave the Internet alone. An alleged terrorist act is no excuse to erode First Amendment freedom of speech. I can only hope that the upcoming Supreme Court rulings will keep the government out of the Internet, just as Roe v Wade kept government interference away from the right to choose to be pregnant.

Legislation against any specific content on the Internet will not make me feel any safer from terrorism. It will make me feel less safe from government intrusion on my life.

The Internet certainly did not instruct the Unabomber on how to make bombs. In fact he hated computers and everything they stood for. No one yet even knows what blew TWA 800 out of the sky.

Congress is doing more senseless political grandstanding with their kneejerk reactions. Why do we keep electing these career politicians anyway? I'ts time we get some real people to represent the people, instead of self-serving politicians.

AMEN

Mickle: Seems like it's all been said, but I have to tell you where I first found out a little about bomb-making; drunk chemistry students actively trying to educate the college bar about this hallowed art (okay, kids trying to impress their yet-to-be girlfriends). Sometimes 'subversive' information is not only available but being shouted at you. Banning stuff like this is a joke.

stevet: Free speech is the #1 concern. Anything should be allowed to be published anywhere in America. If someone wanted to make a bomb I'm sure they would be able to find the ingredients in a book somewhere or simply take a couple of chemistry courses.

-stevet

bizzaro: Well... I think that I am on both sides on this one...If you look at the TWA bombing, the explosive used was enough to cripple an aircraft, a jumbo jet for that matter, and send it into the ocean....How many people think that the terrorists who did this got the info off the net?? But the Olympic Park explosion was a pipe bomb....the information was probably obtained off the internet. Now I am not saying that either of these should have been done, but free speech is free speech no matter what kind of person gets ahold of dangerous information.

Ironeyes: When freedom of speech is denied, no one will simply say, we are going to deny you certain speech. You will always be told that your freedom to do or say certain things is being done for your own good or for your own protection. Any encroachment on your freedom is an attack on all freedom. People seldom loose their freedom in one giant "freedom grab". Freedom is lost in small increments over an extended period of time, cloaked in a "It's for the good of all that we limit these freedoms". There are books and I am sure information on the internet about devil worship-I have never read the information, have no interest in it, and I believe that it is wrong and harmful to society as a whole. However, I do not believe it should be censored. If an individual has an interest in bombs, guns, knives, poisons, or devil worship they can get the information from many sources. I was trained in explosives in the US Marines in the 1960's and would have no problem manufacturing a bomb, however I have no interest in doing so. I do not feel that if I want to pass information on about how to manufacture an explosive device on to someone else, that my right to do so should be infringed on. Any government that attempts to infringe on those rights makes the need for bombs, guns, etc., greater. I have seen a great erosion of our personal freedom in my lifetime and was warned about how our freedoms would be slowly but surely taken away by a gentleman that worked for the CIA over twenty years ago. At the time I thought he was a "nut", but now I look back and see all the things he warned of have come to pass. I only wish I could remember more of what he told me. So remember: "Governments do not grant freedom, they only take freedom away."

tondeb: Bomb making is not something that everyone should know, but to try and ban that information from being placed on the internet is like telling people they can't breath the air they need to live. As was pointed out in one of your comments - all you have to do is go to the library, read a newspaper or ask any local farmer and you will learn how to make a bomb. Instead of banning this type of information let's get some laws that say when you make a bomb and use it causing injury or death to people - YOU ARE DEAD - prove beyond any doubt that you used the bomb and then blow you up - no appeal - no nothing - just stand on the bomb and watch it tick until it goes boom and you go with it. One or two TV and newspaper reviews of something like that will cause about 98% of the would be bombers to stop. As far as the other 2% go - they believe Allah will bless them if they die for such an act and nothing can stop that.

Besides Feinstein should have stayed in California.

Remag: Very short & sweet. "Keep the Government OUT of my face. Pockets too.

pbell: I belive that while we all have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of others, I don't believe that banning information the net is the answer to stopping bombings.

kannan: It's not a question of whether the internet causes more bombings. It's a question of how free information is transmitted. I have no prejudice for bombs.. actually, I am against everybody having access to that type of information. But, if you ban Bombs on the net, it is almost the same as punishing people for talking about bomb plans between themselves. The truth is, there is no difference between the internet and face-to-face social interaction, in strictly practical terms. What is an e-mail? Its' like a letter or conversation. Online chat is normal chat. And A web page is just like a flyer, more sophisticated than a peice of paper, but still a flyer. Just because the medium is different and newer, it does not mean that there have to be stricter regulations on it.

Andy_C: To quote Thomas Jefferson:

When people are afraid of the Government, we have Tyrany.

When The Goverment is afraid of the people we have Democracy.

CAlbert: This country was founded on bombs, and we have the right to keep and bear bombs, don't we? Who knows, someday we may unexpectedly be attacked by ruthless foreign terrorists, and have to defend ourselves.

ckatz: Yes, it should be banned. This is not free speech, this is a sick mind. That would put something on the net that would harm another person or destroy another's property. This is a sick and perverted mind it is sick, sick, sick, sick. The next time you get on an airplane you may be the next to die from an internet bomb. Have a nice trip.

meldjornr: Free speech is a necessity no matter the form. Don't ban anything.

xiabelle: Legally speaking, national security always has precedence over anyone's free speech. Several Supreme Court cases illustrate this point: clear and present danger is a valid reason for restricting speech.

However. Speech is not what is at issue here. The net is not the sole access for information about bombs. Books can get it. Anyone with a knowledge of chemistry can figure out a simple bomb -- add some more knowledge, and, well...

I can't say I can truly make an argument either way here. Information on the net is fairly freely distributable and somewhat harder to trace in some ways. A library book, they can keep records on. Who checked what out when. Although that would do nothing with photocopies.

My gut instinct, though, is being against the banning of the information -- although restricting it would be fine, I suppose. It's a touchy subject and I dislike the practice of banning. And while it may be in some ways a matter of national security, I don't think that banning will accomplish anything. There's no way to stop the information flow completely unless you have a closed society.

dorseyh: I'm waiting for THEM to ban anything on the net. Won't it be a joy to watch them try and enforce THEIR prohibition(s)?

Let the game begin!

1488: I am from members.tripod.com/~1488/index.html

Please all I have to say is that free speech is the greatest. FREE speech is the difference between us and communism. although we are going head long into communism ..at least we still have the right to READ about any subject we wish and to think about anything we want to including subjects that are "taboo" or offensive. Bomb plans are for EDUCATIONAL purposes ONLY. and if anyone takes them seriously then that person is wholly responsible for his actions. Not the MATERIAL! the material is out there and the more that the government tries to ban it the more determened the individual will become. Please KEEP FREE SPEECH ALIVE!

rjnerd: bizzarro...
You write "the information was probably obtained off the internet."
That statement is very likely incorrect. Many times more people have access to libraries than have access to the net. On a straight probability basis, the information was most likely from a printed source.
I have a suggestion: hire two rentacops. Hand one a PC and an AOL disk. Drop the other off at an urban library. See which one comes up with plans first.

NMQ80: If there is anything that should be done then it would be to increase the security and do the job in the way it should be done. Stop blaming everything and use the net as a hanger to your weakeness and get real. The net is called an Information SuperHighway,we need to learn whatever we want to learn. I have files of how to make bombs collected from the net, but will I use it?. I'm sure I won't.

Aericah: I abhor the thought of censoring anything. It may begin "for the public good", with acceptable bannings such as bomb literature, but how long would it take for the government to decide it should choose EVERY item we read for us. A criminal will learn how to perfect and perpetrate his crime with or without the literature available in print or on the net.

meu642: I think that the only people we should fear accessing the information on bomb making, are the freaks out there that'll USE it. For example, some kids, mentally incompetent people, etc.

These kids should be watched by their parents better. The mentally incompetent should (and usually are) watched. The real question is, why do we as Americans play both extremes? We either want to ban everything, or nothing at all for fear our rights would be infringed upon. We need to find a happy medium.

RCalvert: I think freedom of speech is freedom of speech period! If we ban one thing we have to ban another. Bomb plans are on the internet, yes, but so are witchcraft rituals, gay/lesbian related home pages, and other forms of interests, so if we ban one forum, everything will be banned for one reason or another.

foxkev: As most people know, it is impossible to monitor all things published on the net. However, anything related to violence or a threat to life should try to be removed.

Monitor and remove violence, not sex!

JennieK: Bombing people is not, and never has been, an intelligent method of terrorism; while it certainly suffices to create terror among the populace, it often has little effect on government. A much more intelligent method is economic terrorism - the IRA was beginning to get the hang of it with that recent bridge bomb of theirs, except that they put it together so badly.

Taking out a few bridges on the motorways encircling major cities stops commerce and hits the governement where it really hurts - furthermore, this tactic, and others like it, _can_ be done with minimal risk to civilian life. But only if the bombers know what they're doing.

Far more people die as a result of devices which don't behave the way they were supposed to - not just terrorist devices, but homemade fireworks too. For this reason, a little information is a dangerous thing, and the net extends the risk of that - but a few, well advertised, properly researched sources of information, such as the Anarchist's Cookbook, can reduce this danger.

I'm not advocating bombing, or terrorism of any sort, but it's undeniably part of the society we live in. Taking information off the net (and it is available in plenty of other places anyway) won't make it go away; it wiil, if anything, increase the number of accidental deaths.

I don't believe there should be _any_ form of censorship online, and consequently feel that I have no more right to judge something unacceptable than does any other person. The net is an essential format for open discussion, including political discussion. It's this kind of discussion which breaks down people's prejudices and extremist views, and reduces the likelihood of terrorism happening at all.

sugar21: I agree with what many of you have said. We were given rights by our forefathers and no one is going to take them away from me. If we actually had "National security" we wouldn't have to be worrying about this, would we?