Personally I believe the exact opposite. It is important that we break free from the political propaganda that says that terrorism means a suicide bomber that kills others, and recognize that the basic concept of terrorism is used all the time by our own respective governments and other power figures.
I see it as terrorism when a religious leader tells people that they will go to hell for not following religious tenants. I see it as terrorism when a government uses FUD on its own people to get them to support a war on another nation.
I also see it as a form of terrorism to take over someone's account and post something in their name. The average person who discovers that someone has hijacked their account and posted in their name is going to feel angry and afraid.
As far as I see it Idiocy and Firesheep can be used in the same manner as terrorism: to frighten people by threatening them. Sure the threat of taking over an online account is much less than the threat of death by a suicide bomb, but I see no reason why it should not be called terrorism.
Instead I find it fascinating that there is so much negative feelings toward me personally for using the word terrorism. Is it suddenly non-kosher to make a comparison? You say I am "cheapening language skills" and "talking babble". I am just surprised at your vehement response, and the general dislike of my use of the word.
I have a broad view of what terrorism is, you evidently have a very narrow view. If you do not want to broaden your view of what a terrorist act can be, then you will not notice the many subtle acts of terrorism committed. If people insist that terrorism can only be applied to acts of physical violence then they will be unaware of the way governments, political leaders, religious leaders, and others use fear to control the masses.
But the point of my comments originally were not to define terrorism, but instead to explain why I might disapprove of Idiocy. Instead it appears to have turned into a large discussion on whether or not it is right to use the word terrorism to describe something which scares someone into changing their actions or habits.
At any rate, downvotes do not hurt me, but I am disappointed by the narrow view of what the word terrorism means.
You can't just choose to neglect to connotations a word carries with it and expect everyone else to do the same, especially while those connotations are still culturally relevant.
Terrorism carries certain meanings in today's political climate, and by using it loosely, you're implicitly linking session hijacking as a means to spread awareness of a longstanding vulnerability to a religious, political and usually violent term. It's akin to calling someone a Nazi, even if there is a comparison to Nazism that could be made.
Feel free to use it as you want, but to expect any other reaction than the one you got is wishful thinking.
I understand what you are saying. Perhaps comparing session hijacking to terrorism is a little too harsh when it is put like that.
It is still the closest word I can think of which describes what one does if they run Idiocy: threaten other people's online confidence and make them more frightened, and hence more cautious in the future.
Only time will tell if Firesheep and Idiocracy are the 9/11 of the online world, leading to more HTTPS (compared to the way real world terrorism resulted in more airport security protocols). Although it might seem harsh there are a lot of similarities.
I see it as terrorism when a religious leader tells people that they will go to hell for not following religious tenants. I see it as terrorism when a government uses FUD on its own people to get them to support a war on another nation.
I also see it as a form of terrorism to take over someone's account and post something in their name. The average person who discovers that someone has hijacked their account and posted in their name is going to feel angry and afraid.
As far as I see it Idiocy and Firesheep can be used in the same manner as terrorism: to frighten people by threatening them. Sure the threat of taking over an online account is much less than the threat of death by a suicide bomb, but I see no reason why it should not be called terrorism.
Instead I find it fascinating that there is so much negative feelings toward me personally for using the word terrorism. Is it suddenly non-kosher to make a comparison? You say I am "cheapening language skills" and "talking babble". I am just surprised at your vehement response, and the general dislike of my use of the word.
I have a broad view of what terrorism is, you evidently have a very narrow view. If you do not want to broaden your view of what a terrorist act can be, then you will not notice the many subtle acts of terrorism committed. If people insist that terrorism can only be applied to acts of physical violence then they will be unaware of the way governments, political leaders, religious leaders, and others use fear to control the masses.
But the point of my comments originally were not to define terrorism, but instead to explain why I might disapprove of Idiocy. Instead it appears to have turned into a large discussion on whether or not it is right to use the word terrorism to describe something which scares someone into changing their actions or habits.
At any rate, downvotes do not hurt me, but I am disappointed by the narrow view of what the word terrorism means.