How to Build a Bomb?

[Ringer]

Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction? One can actively kill and the other can actively do nothing. The directions to its location would have to be followed.

Considering a criminal can mean someone who just jay walked, yes I think it is a critical distinction. I assume you mean giving the information knowing that the information is going to someone who is planning to commit a crime by using that information. That is a straw-man, and again is an extremely specific scenario when we are talking in generalities. It would be like you saying murder should be illegal then me countering with, "so you don't think you should be able to defend yourself when someone tries to murder/rape you?" It's a loaded question as well as a straw-man. There are always exceptions in any law, one of those would be giving the information to someone you know is actively planning on using that information to do harm. But the general distinction is still valid. Legislation is not all or nothing, nor is it black and white.

I get the impression you think I've been disingenuous this entire thread. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Not purposefully, but I do feel the arguments you are making are being brought forth seem to be disingenuous and used solely to be contrary.

 

[edit] I can't spell [/edit]

Edited April 24, 2013 by Ringer

[zapatos]

Considering a criminal can mean someone who just jay walked, yes I think it is a critical distinction. I assume you mean giving the information knowing that the information is going to someone who is planning to commit a crime by using that information. That is a straw-man, and again is an extremely specific scenario when we are talking in generalities. It would be like you saying murder should be illegal then me countering with, "so you don't think you should be able to defend yourself when someone tries to murder/rape you?" It's a loaded question as well as a straw-man. There are always exceptions in any law, one of those would be giving the information to someone you know is actively planning on using that information to do harm. But the general distinction is still valid. Legislation is not all or nothing, nor is it black and white.Not purposefully, but I do feel the arguments you are making are being brought forth seem to be disingenuous and used solely to be contrary.

 

[edit] I can't spell [/edit]

Did I mention that I was trying to get others to justify their positions?

 

You gave a general situation or rule ("The distinction is critical because one can actively kill and the other does can actively do nothing.") and I asked how a specific situation ("Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction?") would be viewed using your general rule. You'll have to explain how asking you a question to better understand your position is a straw man. If there are exceptions to your rule, then perhaps you should mention them up front instead of criticizing me when I try to find out what they are.

 

I'm starting to get the impression that you are just trying to be contrary.

[Ringer]

Did I mention that I was trying to get others to justify their positions?

Yes, but any justification of any law can be reduced to an extremely specific scenario where it doesn't apply.

You gave a general situation or rule ("The distinction is critical because one can actively kill and the other does can actively do nothing.") and I asked how a specific situation ("Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction?") would be viewed using your general rule. You'll have to explain how asking you a question to better understand your position is a straw man. If there are exceptions to your rule, then perhaps you should mention them up front instead of criticizing me when I try to find out what they are.

 

I'm starting to get the impression that you are just trying to be contrary.

And I answered you that the general distinction is still important, but no one has said that in every situation any one who asks should be given that information. Also, if you look at the history of bombing attacks, many don't have a criminal history so your specific example doesn't matter. And, again, I answered your question. It's a straw man because my position is that information on bomb making should not be made illegal. You made my position I should actively give information on how to make a bomb to someone who, I assume you meant, plans to do harm to others with that information. How is that not a straw-man. One is the existence of information, the other is active teaching. See the difference?

 

As to me pointing out the exception, you want me to write the legislation? Again, would you give all the exceptions in the murder scenario?

[zapatos]

You made my position I should actively give information on how to make a bomb to someone who, I assume you meant, plans to do harm to others with that information. How is that not a straw-man.

I did no such thing. I asked you a question. I was presenting no attitude and had no ulterior motives. You seem to be making assumptions or reading things into what I said.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

 

Person 1 has position X.

 

Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

Quoting an opponent's words out of contexti.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]

Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's argumentsthus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]

Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

 

Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

   

  I did not disregard any key points you made. I did not present a superficially similar position. I did not misrepresent your position. I did not quote your words out of context.

  And most importantly, I did not attack a variation of your position, concluding that your position was false/incorrect/flawed.

   

  I asked you a question.

(edit for clarity) Edited April 24, 2013 by zapatos

[swansont]

But don't we often regulate things that are one step removed? For example, it is a illegal to conspire to commit a crime, even if I have not taken any steps to execute the plan.

 

I wasn't suggesting that gun control is advocating restricting knowledge about their manufacture. I am suggesting that selling guns is potentially dangerous, and information on how to build a bomb is potentially dangerous. In that sense they are similar. Why should we accept one potentially dangerous situation and not another?

 

"Potentially dangerous" is a vague description, and US law seems to not like vagueness, especially where constitutionality comes into play. Many things are potentially dangerous. Matches are potentially dangerous, because they cause fires. But there's no push to regulate them.

 

From a very real perspective, how dangerous are bombs, in reality? Not potentially, as in "bombs can kill a lot of people" — in actual fact of numbers of deaths. How many people are actually killed by bombs every year is the US? Guns deaths number around 30,000. We rarely hear about most of them, because they are so common — only local events make the news, unless it involves someone famous or important. Bombs are unusual events, so they are all over the news. Basically every one in the country heard about the Boston bombings, and yet there were just three fatalities, with a few dozen serious injuries and a hundred or so more minor ones. Because bombs are rare events, we overplay the risk and amp up the fear from that risk, because humans are bad it. (Same thing as when someone gets ricin mailed to them, and it's big news. But what's the actual risk, as compared to all the mundane things that can happen to people? It's miniscule.) Keep in mind that this is with bomb-making speech not restricted. How many deaths?

 

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html

[zapatos]

"Potentially dangerous" is a vague description, and US law seems to not like vagueness, especially where constitutionality comes into play. Many things are potentially dangerous. Matches are potentially dangerous, because they cause fires. But there's no push to regulate them.

 

From a very real perspective, how dangerous are bombs, in reality? Not potentially, as in "bombs can kill a lot of people" — in actual fact of numbers of deaths. How many people are actually killed by bombs every year is the US? Guns deaths number around 30,000. We rarely hear about most of them, because they are so common — only local events make the news, unless it involves someone famous or important. Bombs are unusual events, so they are all over the news. Basically every one in the country heard about the Boston bombings, and yet there were just three fatalities, with a few dozen serious injuries and a hundred or so more minor ones. Because bombs are rare events, we overplay the risk and amp up the fear from that risk, because humans are bad it. (Same thing as when someone gets ricin mailed to them, and it's big news. But what's the actual risk, as compared to all the mundane things that can happen to people? It's miniscule.) Keep in mind that this is with bomb-making speech not restricted. How many deaths?

 

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html

That is an excellent argument and, in my mind anyway, makes clear the difference between the threat due to guns and the threat due to bomb making information on the internet. I have no counter argument to that, and agree that given our current situation, there is no reason to attempt to regulate bomb making information.

[Iggy]

 

Because quite a lot of people have to be trained in explosives for legitimate reasons, the government censor would not only have to examine each new case of questionable material to determine if it is acceptable, they would also have to determine who is acceptable.

 

Is that the only way to do it, do you think? I imagine that since we are talking about information on the internet that software could be used to flag questionable material. Heck, even just passing a law making it illegal to teach kids how to make pipe bombs might be enough to deter some content from showing up. I imagine if you got some smart people together, they could come up with a reasonable approach to limiting some type of information without it being too restrictive.

 

McAfee knows lots of things about sites that come up during my Google searches. Perhaps something like that will be able to flag sites for 'nail filled pressure cookers' instead of just porn or viruses.

 

Yes, it is the only way to do it. A useful model is classified information. Because limited dissemination of classified information is necessary (some people need it) you have to have a controlling entity (a censor) that not only grades information (how classified is it?), you also have to grade individual people (what clearance level do they have?). Both the information and the people have to be judged.

 

Your individual points,

 

Yes, you can "make it illegal to teach kids how to make pipe bombs", but that is worlds away from the prior restraint we were talking in terms of earlier.

 

Software can no doubt serve as a tool of censorship, but the censor has to program it, and certain people (first responders, military, hospital, etc.) would need to be treated differently by the software, and thereby judged differently by the censor.

[zapatos]

Yes, it is the only way to do it. A useful model is classified information. Because limited dissemination of classified information is necessary (some people need it) you have to have a controlling entity (a censor) that not only grades information (how classified is it?), you also have to grade individual people (what clearance level do they have?). Both the information and the people have to be judged.

You may be right. I am trying to think of a way around this but am having a tough time coming up with something else that would work. All seem to involve some sort of lock and key.

Yes, you can "make it illegal to teach kids how to make pipe bombs", but that is worlds away from the prior restraint we were talking in terms of earlier.

I find this one to fit well with prior restraint. According to your link, prior restraint is censorship, and censorship includes self censorship. Make the penalty harsh enough and people will self censor. A good example is child pornography on the internet.

[Iggy]

Make the penalty harsh enough and people will self censor.

 

A good example is child pornography on the internet.

 

Is this child pornography?

 

Prior restraint would mean that gatekeepers who run the internet must answer that question before it is posted and either allow it or disallow it. The publication medium is censored by controlling the medium. The judgement happens before the publication. The key here is that the information would not be available. Assange wouldn't have posted classified US diplomatic cables and the public would not have seen those cables.

 

Non-prior restraint means that the publication has no gatekeeper. If you do something illegal with a publication then a jury can judge you guilty only after the offense is committed. This is the situation Assange actually found himself in when he was briefly imprisoned in the UK.

 

Because the internet is so anonymous, the only realistic way of keeping bomb-making instructions away from the public is with prior restraint (like China does)

[zapatos]

Is this child pornography?

 

Prior restraint would mean that gatekeepers who run the internet must answer that question before it is posted and either allow it or disallow it. The publication medium is censored by controlling the medium. The judgement happens before the publication. The key here is that the information would not be available. Assange wouldn't have posted classified US diplomatic cables and the public would not have seen those cables.

 

Non-prior restraint means that the publication has no gatekeeper. If you do something illegal with a publication then a jury can judge you guilty only after the offense is committed. This is the situation Assange actually found himself in when he was briefly imprisoned in the UK.

 

Because the internet is so anonymous, the only realistic way of keeping bomb-making instructions away from the public is with prior restraint (like China does)

I see now. Thanks for the explanation.

[Airbrush]

If bombings became more common, then public outrage may cause some new laws about the availability of info to build simple bombs.

[overtone]

 

If bombings became more common, then public outrage may cause some new
laws about the availability of info to build simple bombs.

Tyranny is always a potential reaction to threat.

 

A government given permission to monitor and punish all exchange of information that could be used to build a bomb would be given the keys to serious oppression - crude bombs in all their wide variety really are very simple, after all, and closely tied to all kinds of ordinary and pervasive technology and employments. The censorship involved would be of necessity pervasive and intrusive in ordinary life. The usual consequence of this kind of approach is arbitrary enforcement against the government's perceived enemies - like the laws against encouraging "hooliganism" we see so often in authoriatarian settings. One could easily jail, for example, anyone who exchanged clear information concerning the safe handling of oxyacetylene welding equipment, or anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, or shotgun shell loading setups, or household drain cleaner.

 

Hooliganism is bad and harmful behavior, many people are harmed by it (many more than are harmed by simple bombs), but laws against encouraging it are worse.

 

Which is one reason no one I know of has even suggested restricting information about the workings of firearms, when attempting to regulate guns.

[Dekan]

Could that explain why the media, and government, made such a hoo-hah about the trivial Boston incident.

 

Is it the excuse, or justification, for increased governmental control?

 

 

 

 

[overtone]

 

Could that explain why the media, and government, made such a hoo-hah about the trivial Boston incident.

Is it the excuse, or justification, for increased governmental control?

The people making the biggest hoo-ha are the same ones most publicly worried about increased government control - so maybe if they would shut up and behave reasonably, they would have fewer worries?

 

But the concern is well supported in recent history - if we consider the huge expansion of government size and intrusiveness in the few months after 9/11, with an authoritarian as well as incompetent executive branch extending its reach and damage in almost unprecedented fashion (matched only by major wars), we can identify the forces and factors we need to be wary of in US politics.

[Airbrush]

Could that explain why the media, and government, made such a hoo-hah about the trivial Boston incident. Is it the excuse, or justification, for increased governmental control?

The media makes a "hoo-hah" about anything popular. Americans want to know ALL about it. We are not accustomed to terrorist bombings, so we want to know all about motivations behind it. I had assumed we would not hear much about the Boston bomber after he was caught. Boy, was I WRONG. And when I turn on CNN and they have more details about the bomber, I feel compelled to watch, even if only trivial new info is available. Maybe other Americans think that way also. CNN keeps it up because their advertisers want them to keep it up, because lots of people want more of it. Edited April 29, 2013 by Airbrush

[Iggy]

The media makes a "hoo-hah" about anything popular. Americans want to know ALL about it. We are not accustomed to terrorist bombings, so we want to know all about motivations behind it. I had assumed we would not hear much about the Boston bomber after he was caught. Boy, was I WRONG. And when I turn on CNN and they have more details about the bomber, I feel compelled to watch, even if only trivial new info is available. Maybe other Americans think that way also. CNN keeps it up because their advertisers want them to keep it up, because lots of people want more of it.

 

I always had the impression that people might spend 15 minutes a day watching cable news, and they'd be disappointed if those 15 minutes weren't dedicated to the top story of the day. Of course, that means CNN has to air the top story all day long -- constantly saying "if you're just joining us..." then giving the same updates they've given 20 times over since the top of the hour.

 

That works for someone like me who might spend a few minutes on a coffee break catching up, but I can only imagine how insane it would drive a person to watch that for something like 8 hours straight. That would be Guantanamo level torture for sure.

[Esrevinu]

I'm sorry, I only read the first page, but the answer is pretty simple... It would be impossible to censor this knowledge on the internet in any sort of reasonable way. If you are studious, you can have more than enough knowledge to build a bomb after taking general chemistry and organic chemistry. Should we eliminate free online knowledge of chemistry? Sure, howtobuildabomb.com could be censored, but then, all they have to do is learn the old fashioned way.

[Airbrush]

I'm sorry, I only read the first page, but the answer is pretty simple... It would be impossible to censor this knowledge on the internet in any sort of reasonable way. If you are studious, you can have more than enough knowledge to build a bomb after taking general chemistry and organic chemistry. Should we eliminate free online knowledge of chemistry? Sure, howtobuildabomb.com could be censored, but then, all they have to do is learn the old fashioned way.

Most yahoos that think killing strangers is cool are not very studious. They don't have a scientist's sensitivity and curiosity, and are not LIKELY to have studied chemistry. Let them learn the "old fashioned way" by going to terrorist school. Why make it easy for them? Look at how inept the Boston bombers were at making an escape. They didn't have a clue they were so photographed. They could not even hijack a car without making a mess of it.

 

I'm don't know if I would even look at "howtobuildabomb.com". Does it really exist? That is exactly the title of this discussion, followed by dot com.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

Howtobuildabomb.com exists and is mainly about the notion of websites disseminating information about bomb building with respect to US law.

 

How to Build a Bomb

 

Feinstein Amendment SP 419

 

In June of 1997, Congress voted 94-0 to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill to prohibit the distribution of bomb-making instructions in the United States. The penalty for violating this law is a fine of $250,000 and/or a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) was the sponsor of the bill. In April of 1997, the Justice Department released a study revealing a connection between the availability of bomb-making instructions and the making of bombs. Although prohibiting the distribution of bomb-making instructions could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment, the Justice Department decided that the distribution of such materials was an obstruction of justice and not a free-speech right, providing the amendment was narrowly written. Thus, the Feinstein Amendment only precludes the distribution of material intentionally directed toward a "a federal offense or other criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce".

 

The "criminal purpose" provision is extremely important, since this means you can find information on explosive devices that are intended for entertainment purposes (e.g., fireworks and rocketry) and you can still learn basic concepts of chemistry, which necessarily include information about explosives. It also protects instructors engaged in teaching about bomb-making for the purpose of devising means of disarming them and protecting military and civilian personnel.

I wonder whether the legislation has been effective in deterring would-be terrorists or, more commonly, curious individuals, from making explosive devices or other weapons. Since 1997, has there been a decrease in the number of would-be bombmakers? When law enforcement agents catch bombers, do they find outlawed copies of The Anarchist Cookbook and The Terrorist's Handbook or do they now find organic chemistry texts and print-outs from About Chemistry?

 

~ Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D.

[Iggy]

 

 

 

How to Build a Bomb

 

 

Feinstein Amendment SP 419

 

 

In June of 1997, Congress voted 94-0 to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill to prohibit the distribution of bomb-making instructions in the United States. The penalty for violating this law is a fine of $250,000 and/or a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) was the sponsor of the bill. In April of 1997, the Justice Department released a study revealing a connection between the availability of bomb-making instructions and the making of bombs. Although prohibiting the distribution of bomb-making instructions could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment, the Justice Department decided that the distribution of such materials was an obstruction of justice and not a free-speech right, providing the amendment was narrowly written. Thus, the Feinstein Amendment only precludes the distribution of material intentionally directed toward a "a federal offense or other criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce".

 

 

 

The "criminal purpose" provision is extremely important, since this means you can find information on explosive devices that are intended for entertainment purposes (e.g., fireworks and rocketry) and you can still learn basic concepts of chemistry, which necessarily include information about explosives. It also protects instructors engaged in teaching about bomb-making for the purpose of devising means of disarming them and protecting military and civilian personnel.

 

I wonder whether the legislation has been effective in deterring would-be terrorists or, more commonly, curious individuals, from making explosive devices or other weapons. Since 1997, has there been a decrease in the number of would-be bombmakers? When law enforcement agents catch bombers, do they find outlawed copies of The Anarchist Cookbook and The Terrorist's Handbook or do they now find organic chemistry texts and print-outs from About Chemistry?

 

 

~ Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D.

 

Scandalous!

 

I'm ashamed to have any part in electing those fools. They think they can tell if instructions on bomb making has "criminal purpose"? They are psychic enough to read the mind of the author?

 

I read the Anarchist's Cookbook. I put into practice more than one thing I learned from it, and none of it criminal.

 

Chemistry texts can be used for criminal purpose and the Anarchist's Cookbook can be used for wholesome all American fun. The person reading a publication is the one with intent and purpose, and if it is criminal then I could understand them getting a $250,000 fine and 20 years imprisonment.

 

Criminalizing the purpose of a publication! It's a scandal!

[Airbrush]

Scandalous!

 

I'm ashamed to have any part in electing those fools. They think they can tell if instructions on bomb making has "criminal purpose"? They are psychic enough to read the mind of the author?

 

I read the Anarchist's Cookbook. I put into practice more than one thing I learned from it, and none of it criminal.

 

Chemistry texts can be used for criminal purpose and the Anarchist's Cookbook can be used for wholesome all American fun. The person reading a publication is the one with intent and purpose, and if it is criminal then I could understand them getting a $250,000 fine and 20 years imprisonment.

 

Criminalizing the purpose of a publication! It's a scandal!

 

"...Although prohibiting the distribution of bomb-making instructions could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment, the Justice Department decided that the distribution of such materials was an obstruction of justice and not a free-speech right, providing the amendment was narrowly written. Thus, the Feinstein Amendment only precludes the distribution of material intentionally directed toward a "a federal offense or other criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce".

 

It is not that difficult to determine if something is "intentionally directed toward a federal offense of other ciminal purpose..." What is so scandalous about that? Instructions on how to build fireworks for entertainment is exempt. Everything is exempt, EXCEPT instructions "intentionally directed towards...criminal purpose". That is what judges and juries determine all the time. No mind reading involved and no scandal at all.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2013 by Airbrush

[Iggy]

It is not that difficult to determine if something is "intentionally directed toward a federal offense of other ciminal purpose..." What is so scandalous about that? Instructions on how to build fireworks for entertainment is exempt. Everything is exempt, EXCEPT instructions "intentionally directed towards...criminal purpose". That is what judges and juries determine all the time. No mind reading involved and no scandal at all.

 

Describing how to build a bomb is different from telling someone to use a bomb for a criminal act. Making the former illegal (regardless of reference to the latter) is a mistake because bomb making instructions have no intent or purpose.

 

Look, it may be illegal for me to ask my housekeeper to poison my wife with rat poison. It may be appropriate for that to be illegal. What is inappropriate is making it illegal to publish the ingredients of rat poison, even if you add the impossible qualifier that the ingredients are directed towards criminal purpose.

 

Any lawyer worth two pence could make a good argument that a James Bond novel is directed towards criminal purpose because it mostly just gives really bad guys really good ideas. The worst argument for censorship is saying that it is an easy matter to judge... saying that it is "not difficult to determine" if something is fit to print.

 

It is impossible.

[Airbrush]

Any judge or jury, with a brain in their heads, will realize that "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" from Al Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine has no probable good purpose, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

"Inspire is an English language online magazine reported to be published by the organization al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The use of the magazine is to increase the availability of their message without challenges to their value system. The magazine is one of the many ways AQAP uses the Internet to reach its audience. Numerous international and domestic extremists motivated by radical interpretations of Islam have been influenced by the magazine and, in some cases, reportedly used its bomb making instructions in their attempts to carry out attacks.^[2] The magazine is also a political warfare tool targeting the American and other Western governments, with the intent of inspiring homegrown terrorism."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspire_(magazine)

 

"Update — April 23: Fed­eral law enforce­ment offi­cials have report­edly con­firmed that Dzhokhar Tsar­naev and his brother got bomb-making instruc­tions from Inspire magazine.

Shortly after author­i­ties revealed that pres­sure cook­ers were used in the explo­sives det­o­nated at the Boston Marathon last week, numer­ous media out­lets began to report and spec­u­late that the bombs matched designs in Al Qaeda in the Ara­bian Penin­sula’s English-language ter­ror mag­a­zine, Inspire.

Let’s be clear, there is still no evi­dence that broth­ers Tamer­lan and Dzkhokhar Tsar­naev read the ter­ror­ist mag­a­zine or used its pres­sure cooker instruc­tions, which are not unique to Inspire. How­ever, the Tsarnaev’s online activ­ity and social media pro­files indi­cate some fas­ci­na­tion with mil­i­tancy and Islam that are con­sis­tent with other mes­sages of Inspire."

 

http://blog.adl.org/extremism/inspire-magazine-a-staple-of-domestic-terror

Edited May 8, 2013 by Airbrush

[John Cuthber]

"Any judge or jury, with a brain in their heads, will realize that "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" from Al Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine has no probable good purpose, beyond a reasonable doubt."

If that is true and you know that it is, then you must have accessed that site to see what it said.

Since by your own acknowledgement, there is no "reasonable doubt" you should now hand yourself in at the nearest police station.

[Airbrush]

"Any judge or jury, with a brain in their heads, will realize that "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" from Al Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine has no probable good purpose, beyond a reasonable doubt."

If that is true and you know that it is, then you must have accessed that site to see what it said.

Since by your own acknowledgement, there is no "reasonable doubt" you should now hand yourself in at the nearest police station.

I have not accessed the site. The crime is posting such instructions not reading them. (You have not read the laws have you? Why are you talking about something you haven't even read?) And the best way to enforce it is to simply delete it when discovered, like the good moderators on this site also do. Good luck tracking down the culprit. Edited May 9, 2013 by Airbrush