
France looking at banning Tor, blocking public Wi-Fi - HugoDaniel
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/12/france-looking-at-banning-tor-blocking-public-wi-fi/
======
gotchange
The French regime again showing its ugly authoritarian and statist face with
these draconian bills. It wasn't enough for them to put environmentalists
under house arrest and subject innocent people to humiliating mandatory
reporting to different police stations 3 times a day or obligatory curfew for
certain people or neighborhoods without any judicial oversight. [0]

I knew it from the beginning that they would abuse the State of Emergency
decree and turn the lives of people esp minorities into a living hell.

[0]:
[https://wiki.laquadrature.net/%C3%89tat_urgence/Recensement#](https://wiki.laquadrature.net/%C3%89tat_urgence/Recensement#)
((FR))

~~~
GrumpyBen
The police found more than 300 illegal weapons during their searches. People
that were put under house arrests have a file on them because of their links
with terrorists or terrorist organizations. I don't feel the government is
abusing the state of emergency, I just feel they should have done all this
before the attacks.

~~~
gotchange
Hey people, I have a file on GrumpyBen, can someone please lock him up as he
is deemed a threat to public safety?

Joking aside, if activists committed any crime, you follow the legal
procedures and challenge them in a court of law before a judge and let the
defendants present their case in a free trial and see if any of the charges
you brought against them sticks, otherwise shut up and leave them alone
because if you start allowing police to hand out sentences without legal
recourse to challenge these arbitrary punishments, you'll descend slowly into
a police state and horrific society to live within.

~~~
vegabook
I don't find your "joke" very funny at all, in the aftermath of almost 200
terrorist deaths (in the west) in November alone. GrumpyBen's prescription is
not fun and anti-liberty, but so is living in a society being preyed upon by
violent groups within it.

~~~
gotchange
I don't find your comment constructive at all.

First, it wasn't a joke. Second, we were discussing putting environment
activists under arbitrary house arrest not terrorists or terrorism. Your anger
at the tragic death should be directed at the terrorists or the security
apparatus which failed miserably to protect people in the "west" and not at me
or the activists.

Try next time to read the comments first before jumping into the discussion.

~~~
vegabook
your silly faux-incitement "joking" ( _your words_ ) strikes the wrong tone in
this literally deadly-serious subject matter, and if it potentially offends
sensibilities then I'm sorry, but pointing that out to you can be
constructive.

------
Rexxar
France doesn't consider anything. If you speak French, just read the original
article on lemonde. It's just a wish list from people working in police and
gendarmerie.

    
    
        Etabli mardi 1er décembre par la direction des libertés publiques
        et des affaires juridiques (DLPAJ), il recense toutes les mesures
        de police administrative que les policiers et les gendarmes
        souhaiteraient voir passer dans le cadre des deux projets de loi
        en cours d’élaboration, l’un sur l’état d’urgence et l’autre sur
        la lutte antiterroriste.
    

Even if it was an official proposition from government, there were no
guarantee this will go through the legislative process. Parliamentary members
do not follow systematically the government and even when they do, many laws
are partially or completely blocked by "conseil constitutionnel".

~~~
girvo
Does the French public complain that "nothing gets passed" like the Australian
public does? I am a massive fan of that system. It has stopped dangerous
legislation from being passed. Not all of it, and not enough, but some, and
that's better than none.

~~~
cookiecaper
A lot of people don't understand this about the American system. It's not
_supposed_ to be easy to push through new law. It's supposed to be so
difficult that only law that reflects wide consensus can get through, under
the theory that this will prevent bad or dangerous laws from going on the
books. If there's a problem in the system now, it's that people have stopped
trying to reach that consensus, not that the process is slow when it's being
actively pursued.

------
reacweb
I think we should really investigate the writers of these two new pieces of
legislation. These people are a bigger threat for all our values than all the
terrorists of the world. The only good answer to terrorism is to not surrender
freedom.

~~~
jacquesm
The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to
push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless.
Politicians like these are just opportunists and would use any hot button
issue to get their way because they know that's the easiest way to railroad
through their pet laws. It's easy to get people to vote against their own
interest, all you need is fear.

There are many such tricks, another is to bring the important stuff up for
vote in the last little bit before a session closes and to waste as much of
the session prior to that by debating some inane point of some un-important
issue at great length leaving insufficient time to debate the important stuff.

It's all tricks and psychology, reason has little to do with it.

~~~
Angostura
The slightly less cynical view is that they know that the next time something
happens they know that - if encryption _is_ involved, they will be absolutely
pilloried by the popular press, opposition etc. for "not doing everything that
can be done".

It takes a certain determination to stand up to that kind of threat.

~~~
jacquesm
Whether encryption is or is not involved is immaterial, we already know that
you can pull off attacks like these _without_ it, so you may assume that it is
also possible pulling off attacks like these with it. That law does nothing at
all to prevent future attacks and the popular press being clueless isn't news
either.

------
zeveb
We see the same impulse in the U.S. and across the world: whenever something
bad happens, people call out for something to be done, regardless of whether
that something would have helped, or if its negative effects outweigh its
positive effects.

We see it with encryption. Yes, encryption can be and is used by bad people
for evil ends, but it is also used by good people for good ends; encryption is
simply the means. It's a human right to speak privately. Law enforcement can
still investigate, can still use different powers to eavesdrop and compel
parties to speech to reveal that speech; but it has no right to be party to
private speech. Yes, bad things will not be detected as a result, but it's
worth it.

We see it with arms control. Yes, weapons can be and are used by bad people to
kill innocents; but they are also used by good people to defend themselves,
whether from crime or tyranny. It is a human right to be armed. Law
enforcement and the military can still use their superior numbers and training
to overwhelm a foe, but they have no right to claim a monopoly on arms. Yes,
innocents will die, but innocents will also live.

We see it with the war on some drugs. Yes, some people will take certain drugs
and commit crimes; but other people will take those same drugs and enjoy a
pleasant mental state. Law enforcement can still arrest criminals, but it has
no right to arrest folks who haven't harmed anyone. It's a human right to
alter one's mental state. The tradeoff is worth it.

The thing is, you have to take this attitude toward all things: religion;
drugs; weapons; encryption; speech in general. Once you start to carve out
exceptions and exclusions to liberty, you'll end up losing ever-more liberty.
It happens faster than one might imagine.

------
rwmj
All this because 130 people were killed. What would they do to prevent the
4600 people killed in road accidents in France last year? Or the 49000 people
killed by alcohol [in 2009]?

~~~
realusername
And as far as I know, they did not use any encryption anyway, so I don't even
see the point here, it's totally unrelated. Should we ban unencrypted
connections then since that's what they used ?

~~~
drdaeman
Let's get to the root of it - they were humans. We should definitely ban
those. Mankind is evil anyway - just think of how many victims it had! /s

~~~
realusername
Exactly, and they committed crimes using cars ! I mean, it can't just be a
coincidence, in the previous Charlie Hebdo attacks, the guys also used a car
to escape from there ! If we ban cars, then no more attacks, it cannot be any
simpler than that !

------
azurelogic
What is more ridiculous is that shared public wifi would become critical in
the event of a major terror attack (on scale with 9/11). We have already seen
the use of social media to allow families and friends to connect after a
disaster occurs. Given the fragility of mobile data networks under heavy load,
public wifi could become the only option for mass communications. The French
government will only be handicapping its people when they need help most.

~~~
PhaseMage
I think we need a mesh topology at the network layer in order to really have
reliable networks in an emergency. TCP/IP, in my opinion, is an engine that
centralizes power: Which leads to choke points and single points of failure
for critical systems. This is especially true for most end nodes: I'm out of
luck if Comcast goes down.

------
jacquesm
That's logical since the known attackers did not use public Wi-Fi nor Tor as
far as we know today but all kinds of plain text channels. /s

~~~
creshal
You see, outlawing $RANDOMTHING is cheaper than properly staffing police units
so they can follow all the leads they get.

~~~
hodwik
And more popular with the public.

You tell the public you're banning something they don't really use? Fine. You
tell the public you're doubling police forces in a time of strong anti-police
sentiment? Good luck in the next election.

~~~
jacquesm
And it's cheaper too...

------
khgvljhkb
I have 0 faith in governments both for understanding and acting properly in
the information age. They have time and again acted bad, and seem to not even
understand the medium with they try to regulate.

In the information age, power does not lie with the one who has the guns. I
hope everyone reading this takes some time to research how to encrypt your
communication & how to use bitcoin.

I also hope we will see more user-friendly ways to communicate securely
(BitMessage is an awesome solution for this)

~~~
jeromeflipo
> I have 0 faith in governments both for understanding and acting properly in
> the information age.

Can we go without a government that properly understand the information age?
If so, how? Who would you trust instead, to organize public affairs?

If not, why does this kind of government doesn't (want to) understand it?

~~~
laotzu
>For the past 3500 years of the Western world, the effects of media–whether
it’s speech, writing, printing, photography, radio or television–have been
systematically overlooked by social observers. Even in today’s revolutionary
electronic age, scholars evidence few signs of modifying this traditional
stance of ostrich-like disregard.

>Because all media, from the phonetic alphabet to the computer, are extensions
of man that cause deep and lasting changes in him and transform his
environment. Such an extension is an intensification, an amplification of an
organ, sense or function, and whenever it takes place, the central nervous
system appears to institute a self-protective numbing of the affected area,
insulating and anesthetizing it from conscious awareness of what’s happening
to it. It’s a process rather like that which occurs to the body under shock or
stress conditions, or to the mind in line with the Freudian concept of
repression. I call this peculiar form of self-hypnosis Narcissus narcosis, a
syndrome whereby man remains as unaware of the psychic and social effects of
his new technology as a fish of the water it swims in. As a result, precisely
at the point where a new media-induced environment becomes all pervasive and
transmogrifies our sensory balance, it also becomes invisible.

>This problem is doubly acute today because man must, as a simple survival
strategy, become aware of what is happening to him, despite the attendant pain
of such comprehension. The fact that he has not done so in this age of
electronics is what has made this also the age of anxiety, which in turn has
been transformed into its Doppelganger–the therapeutically reactive age of
anomie and apathy. But despite our self protective escape mechanisms, the
total-field awareness engendered by electronic media is enabling us–indeed,
compelling us–to grope toward a consciousness of the unconscious, toward a
realization that technology is an extension of our own bodies.

-Marshall McLuhan

------
akerro
16-09-2015

Top Intel Lawyer Says Terror Attack Would Help Push for Anti-Encryption
Legislation

[https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/top-intel-lawyer-
pushing...](https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/top-intel-lawyer-pushing-anti-
encryption-legislation-says-terror-attack-help/)

~~~
acqq
Related: An “Enormous Opportunity”

[https://theintercept.com/2015/09/11/today-14th-
anniversary-e...](https://theintercept.com/2015/09/11/today-14th-anniversary-
enormous-opportunity/)

------
moron4hire
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Origin_of_term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Origin_of_term)

""Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred
specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during
the 1793–1794 Reign of terror."

------
tdkl
And they were mocking the reactionary Patriot Act.

Learning from the past is hard. Or in this case, simply neglected for
convenience. Cui bono?

~~~
scrollaway
Who's "they"? Do you have links to "they"? Do you have proof that the one
"they" is the same group as the other "they"?

~~~
tdkl
I'll get back to you when I'm done with my delicious freedom fries.

~~~
scrollaway
I can't quite tell if you're a troll or merely have a _really_ hard time
understanding that France is actually in a very complex position here.

This entire thread is so depressingly misinformed about the country that I
don't have the heart to correct people.

Namely people are quick to forget that France is in fact in a state of
emergency and that conditions do change when that's pulled. It doesn't mean we
should lie down and accept anything and everything, but forgetting what's
actually going on makes everything _worse_.

There are serious issues with the current french government but they have
nothing to do with "the left" or "the right", as if those things ever
mattered. They have to do with how NIH and technologically impaired France is
and that hasn't changed since the minitel.

------
aikah
Yes, our government is going full r-tard. I fail to see the difference right
now, between the "left" and the far right to which the left loves pointing
fingers at. With the state of emergency, the left is behaving exactly like
fascists.

Now imagine the left voting all these anti-freedom laws, suspending (some)
human rights (as it is the case now), and in 2 years, the far right coming
into power and using the laws the left voted for their own benefits.

~~~
tdkl
I've been thinking this for some time lately, that while the notion of radical
right is known and avoided in the modern world, the radical left is actually
more harmful :

\- it's not that known to deal with it, since if you raise questions, you're
labeled as right,

\- with this it powers the actual radical right.

------
noja
Yes, because the attackers didn't use plain old sms, oh no they didn't!

------
OJFord

        > a ban on free and shared Wi-Fi connections during a
        > state of emergency
    

Restricting communication and access to news bulletins sounds like a terrible
thing to do in a state of emergency!

------
jsjohnst
> The French prime minister suggested that they may soon make it illegal to
> merely visit a terrorism-related website, too.

So getting rickrolled could land you in jail? Yeah, that'll go over really
effectively.

------
r-w
The U.K. is already far beyond illiberal, but I can’t see Germany going this
way. They’ve long been on the right side of the Internet, and I doubt they’ll
have any need to do otherwise anytime soon.

~~~
mynewtb
German politicians and lobbyists are continuously pushing year after year. I
fear the public losing interest in opposition.

~~~
r-w
I’m more concerned that most people may never hear or even care about their
dwindling online freedoms. I found an article over at
[https://lobste.rs](https://lobste.rs) that drives this point home, if a bit
melodramatically: [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/pirate-bay-founder-peter-
su...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-i-have-
given-up)

------
akerro
Another country is looking at banning Tor. Another country will be defeated by
Tor. Let's watch them fail.

------
rasz_pl
>block Wi-Fi hotspots during a state of emergency

but Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!

------
alephnil
It is not the first time France has done things like this. In the 90s, France
outlawed encryption completely, with prison sentence for breaking the ban. As
tools like ssh became common, this became less and less practical. For example
the supercomputer center at my university had to develop a one time password
scheme for the French users (printed out and sent to them by mail), since ssh
was strictly forbidden there.

~~~
lucb1e
I'd like to learn more, source/reference?

~~~
alephnil
For the crypto ban, I was unable to find reputable references. I found only
one from the Register, which I consider less than reputable (and the article
in question is quite inaccurate, for example they managed to call Minister of
Finance at the time, Dominique Strauss-Kahn Domenica, and refer to him as
"she"). The factual content seems to be right otherwise, and 1999 is about the
right timeframe.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_encryption/)

As you can see, you could be sentenced to 6 months of jail and fined nearly
$90000 for using encryption.

The one-time password telnet demon was developed at a university in
Scandinavia before the ban ended in the second part of the 90s. This was a
solution they weren't proud of, so naturally there wasn't written anything
down about it, but it was considered better than pure telnet and it kept
French users out of trouble (I hesitate to say the right side of the law,
given its stupidity).

------
contingencies
My family and I had planned to move to France in the next few years, partly in
order to educate our daughter in French. Given the state's behaviour, we will
be reconsidering that move. Where are the _liberte_ , _egalite_ and
_fraternite_ in these proposals? We can observe the exact opposite of all of
these ideals: France has become a total hypocrisy.

------
akerro
Windows 10 lets you share your WiFi password with your Facebook friends.
That's technically a shared WiFi isn't it?

~~~
pmontra
No, that's only sharing the password and that's done by the users, not
necessarily by the owner. To share WiFi you have to own a hotspot, turn it on,
give the password to somebody.

However I see your point: what if a company network (think a small shop) is
shared with its employees and the password goes to their friends and they can
connect from a car in the parking lot? _optout suffix for every network in
France?

~~~
akerro
Or coffee shops were you get password printed on a bill after you order
something, the same with hotels and motels, you get wifi password after
registering for a room.

------
id122015
I've read that the radical Muslim attacks were sponsored by Russia. In the
absence of the Big Picture it's hard to understand Political Science and who
are the main Actors on the spheres of influence.

All that Russia wanted was to divide their enemy. New propaganda but the trick
is old.

#TerroristRussia

------
acd
West will not win against crazy groups by reimplementing the great firewall of
China.

If the state wants to control our lifes, they should have real time access to
credit card and phone data.

One main issue is religions and that it turns people against each other due to
different beliefs.

~~~
mcansky
no book of religion pushes people to grab a knife or a gun to harm others;
crazy leaders do and unstable and uneducated people follow.

yet, even if we discard that previous point : forbidding religions would be
exactly the same as creating one and pointing "believers" as enemies of "non
believers" ... triggering more of what you try to stop

general education and broad tolerance between cultures (either religious or
not) is quite probably the only way to move towards non violence and peace ...

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _no book of religion pushes people to grab a knife or a gun to harm others_

Yes they do. From the old testament (Deuteronomy 13, 6-13)
[http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/13.htm](http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/13.htm)

\---

 _If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the
wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly,
saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers
have known,_

 _some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far
off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,_

 _you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him,
nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him._

 _But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to
death, and afterward the hand of all the people._

\---

Of course, no sane priest or rabbi would ever endorse such words _today_.
Nevertheless, they are written there for all to see and misapply.

Granted, I have taken the quote out of context. But so do religious fanatics.

~~~
clarkmoody
_> Granted, I have taken the quote out of context. But so do religious
fanatics._

You can't hand-wave this sort of thing away, since anyone can make the Bible
say anything they want by selectively quoting it. You are doing more harm than
good here.

The Old Testament law was set up to create a theocracy. Many infractions of
the law were punishable by death. Contrast that to Jesus' teaching:

 _" You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the
evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you
love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax
collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you
doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as
your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-8)_

But of course, you'll need to understand the context in which Jesus is
teaching to understand all of what he's saying in Matthew 5 and during his
whole ministry.

In the very same chapter he addresses the law and says that he did not come to
abolish it but to fulfill it. That statement has been a great point of
contention through the ages as well.

Did I just make things worse by pulling a couple verses out of context? At
least the ones I quoted don't advocate homicide.

As far as radical clerics/rabbis/priests/etc, religious leaders worth anything
should encourage the congregation to look to the original texts rather than
relying only on their words as final truth.

~~~
aikah
> But of course, you'll need to understand the context in which Jesus is
> teaching to understand all of what he's saying in Matthew 5 and during his
> whole ministry.

The problem right here : context. If the teachings of the Bible (or the Quran)
are bound to a specific context then they shouldn't be worshiped like some
universal and perfect teachings. Following these teachings then means
following moral values that were only valid 2000 or 1300 years ago, in a
specific context. Obviously one cannot live in a modern society while
following the Bible or the Koran to the letter. While (most) Christians
acknowledge that fact, irregardless of their beliefs in a creator, that's not
the case of every religious group.

That's basically my problem with religion. It's a travesty, it exploits the
need for spirituality every man has by trying to impose some random moral
values dictated by a "superior being" nobody but a prophet has access to,
without even trying to satisfy that need for spirituality at first place
(since we know nothing about that being except the fact that he is "our
creator"). And since men are not omniscient of course these moral values are
bound to the context in which they were chosen. Religion is not faith in (a)
god, but more like faith in the teachings of a man that says he has seen god.

~~~
Cyph0n
I think your issue is quite deeper than that. Even if God revealed Himself to
all humanity or more than one person, there would still be disbelievers.
Humans were created that way, and God knows that obviously. We are inherently
obtuse creatures when it comes to belief.

How many people should God reveal Himself to in order for others to believe in
His existence? 2? 10? 10000? Would people still believe that revelation 100
years later? 1000 years later? How would the revelation take place? God just
appears in the sky? Or personally to every human?

Keep in mind that exposure to a supernatural being is a difficult thing to
handle for our tiny brains. Or perhaps it flies over our heads, like when you
stand among a group of ants.

You might say why doesn't God just appear regularly? That would defeat the
purpose of belief. It would be too easy then. Furthermore, I'd wager that we
would not have developed as a species. Why try to understand the orbits of the
planets when God will just appear in a few weeks? Is there a point anymore?

I guess my point is that the "why personal revelation" argument is a tough nut
to crack. If you believe in God, then the answer is simply God knows more. If
not, you might need to approach the issue in a more rational manner, instead
of just scratch the surface and then dismiss religion entirely.

------
Mikeb85
BTW, this is the real news from France today:
[http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/resultats/](http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/resultats/)

------
wiz21c
Could anyone cite the part of the article referring specifically to the TOR
network (article behin pay wall).

(Note : I say "cite", which is not a copyright viloation)

~~~
hartator
Use this link:
[https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...](https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7rPOh5cnJAhVItxoKHQ-
iC-sQqQIIIDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.co.uk%2Ftech-
policy%2F2015%2F12%2Ffrance-looking-at-banning-tor-blocking-public-wi-
fi%2F&usg=AFQjCNH_isM8zx7_A8uWroBanVtDtHP0Tg&bvm=bv.108538919,d.d24)

------
ionised
And people thought using terrorist attacks as a way to push a totalitarian
agenda and perpetual police-state was just tin-foil hattery.

------
ipozgaj
Even if they pass the law to ban Tor, you could still use it through an SSH
tunnel, which is effectively undetectable.

~~~
lucb1e
The greater public is not going to know that. However Tor does have obfsproxy:

> obfsproxy is a tool that attempts to circumvent censorship, by transforming
> the Tor traffic between the client and the bridge. This way, censors, who
> usually monitor traffic between the client and the bridge, will see
> innocent-looking transformed traffic instead of the actual Tor traffic.

~~~
ipozgaj
Right, but my point was that the whole point of this legislation would be to
prevent terrorists from using Tor. In reality, it would do nothing to stop
them. Whoever really wants to have a way of communicating over an encrypted
channel will always find a method of bypassing measures like this.

------
dheera
Accidentally read it as "The first proposal, according to __Le Merde __, would
forbid free and shared Wi-Fi during a state of emergency. "

------
dschiptsov
As if public Wi-Fi has been somehow related to the attack or its causes.

------
dangerpowpow
do they think this will stop terrorists?

------
cobaltblue
Europe is doing all it can to produce a new Hitler. The anti-Muslim rhetoric
can be insane at times, but it's no lie that the imports are from a very
different culture and are unlikely to assimilate to a more western one,
especially when they outbreed their western counterparts.

What concerns me is that all this money and rage will be spent in reaction to
these tragic events that kill either less than 100, around 100, or around 3000
people tops. Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and disease routinely kill far
more and yet suggesting we devote effort to solve the engineering challenges
of controlling our planet gets tossed aside as just as crazy as the suggestion
that it's possible to control immigration with a wall.

~~~
vmorgulis
Look at this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015)

~~~
cobaltblue
Nothing on those lists contradicts what I said, but thanks for the links.

------
wsc981
Socialist regimes have been te most suppressive in peoples history. Think
about Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc…

Socialism kills [0]. Or a more eloquent and less extreme read would be "The
Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek

\---

[0]: [http://jim.com/killingfields.html](http://jim.com/killingfields.html)

~~~
Kristine1975
>Hitler

>Socialist

Just because the Nazis called themselves National Socialists doesn't make them
socialists. Communists and socialists were the first the Nazis sent to
concentration camps.

~~~
gherkin0
I think that argument is pretty weak. Many of the millions that the Soviets
sent to the gulags were socialists and communists, but that action doesn't
make the Soviets or those they imprisoned and murdered not-communist or not-
socialist.

Communists and socialists have a long histories of bloody internecine
conflicts.

~~~
nitrogen
_Countries_ have long histories of bloody conflicts, regardless of ideology.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Why are you getting downvoted for this?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history)

You'd have to be somewhat detached from the historical record to seriously
suggest that all of these, or even a majority, were the result of socialism.

