Slashdot Mirror


New GCHQ Chief Says Social Media Aids Terrorists

An anonymous reader sends this report from Sky News: The new head of GCHQ has accused social media websites of helping terror groups and called for closer ties with intelligence agencies. "'However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us." ... Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

140 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Not a win by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we start screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like we have not defeated the Muslims. We have become like the Muslims.

    1. Re:Not a win by Tyr07 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First off, being a Muslim has nothing to do with screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like.

      Muslim is a religious choice, and just like Christians or any other religion, there are those who are fanatical about it. They are dangerous, remember the holy crusades?

      There are people who are fanatical who have nothing to do with religion at all, what group do you insult for them?
      There's plenty of Muslims who live in Canada who are perfectly reasonable respectable people who are not violent who appreciate that you have your own way you live your life, and aren't coming to you to force you to change it, and just want to be respected for their way of life like any other religion.

    2. Re:Not a win by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've only just now realized that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden won beyond their wildest imaginations? We can fist bump about killing him and shouting "MURICA!! FUCK YEEEEAAH!" but even with Bush in front of his "Mission Accomplished" banner, we've still lost this fight big time by succumbing to the terrorist boogeyman to allow Big Brother to tuck us in at night.

    3. Re:Not a win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      First off, being a Muslim has nothing to do with screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like.

      really?

    4. Re:Not a win by javilon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I guess he means muslim countries.

      Any country defined (by themselves) as "a muslim country" falls into the view: "screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like".

      As a test, try to go to a "muslim country" and tell them you are gay...

      There are also other countries where this happens, like Russia (recently on the news) but the point is it does happen in every muslim country.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    5. Re:Not a win by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Considering that every time someone says something like wanting no religious accommodation in schools. Muslim groups start screaming "islamophobia or islamophobe" some other type of crap, it does seem to be particular to them.

      But sure, there's fanatical people. What's the difference between Muslims and Christians? Two things, first Christians don't believe that all people are Christian or born as such. Islam dictates that all people are. Second, Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Islam has had none. Also, your "dangerous holy crusades" were in response to Muslims. More so the out-right slaughter, rape, murder, and forced conversion of Christians in Spain...that had been on-going for nearly 100 years by that time.

      An individual who's fanatical, most people would lump as an individualist. And sure, there's plenty of Muslims in Canada who aren't coming to try and force you to change, but there are plenty that are. There are also some that are being directly attacked by their own community when they came out after the Muslim drove over two soldiers in Quebec stating that all mosques need to be shut down immediately and investigated. It's nice and all, but there is something fundamentally broken in Islam. All Islamic organizations need to have a financial audit, and all immigration from Islamic countries stopped in the intern.

      Burying your head in the sand over it, won't make it go away.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Not a win by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we start screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like we have not defeated the Muslims. We have become like the Muslims.

      This sums it up right there. We are well on our way already.

      The GCHQ head is clueless. They'll just do what they think is effective and safe. When they figured out we were using voice prints and cell phones to target air strikes, they stopped using cell phones.

      The same thing will happen with Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Snapchat, or whatever else.

      Another point, the ones using those things now are the dumb ones that are all talk, and not going to do much if anything effective. Worry about the ones that have hidden their messages that we aren't finding, or the ones that just meet in person or send coded snail mail letters. They don't need instructions, they need MONEY and TIME to get their goals done.

      This is nothing more than yet another ploy to hook more surveillance into stuff that will be basically used to make the IRS more effective at targeting mild political opposites for harassment. The guys they need to bust in on with guns plot in mosques and living rooms in person.

    7. Re:Not a win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Muslim is a religious choice

      How is it a religious choice? You are born into it, and if you try to leave you are publicly executed. Where is the choice in that? It is fuckin cancer.

    8. Re:Not a win by Tyr07 · · Score: 2

      It would be more accurate to say by governments and people of power in nations that are primarily populated by people of the Muslim religion.
      They just don't have the digital intelligence network to do it quietly like North America.

      I promise you that there a lot of people in "Muslim" countries who don't give a shit if you're gay, as long as you're not trying to force them to change their way of life, and don't care what you're doing in your spare time if you're not hurting anyone. They're going for coffee with their friends, going out for dinner, going dancing. Having friends over for dinner, watching TV, going out to a movie.

      A lot of them are just trying to live their lives and don't want to deal with this shit anymore than we do. Unfortunately the smallest percentage of people seem to be the loudest who are screaming over everything.

    9. Re:Not a win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its actually just anger at people being able to organize effective anti government protests.

    10. Re:Not a win by Tyr07 · · Score: 2

      And sure, there's plenty of Muslims in Canada who aren't coming to try and force you to change, but there are plenty that are

      Sure, I can agree with that, I just don't like the generalization. Any special interest group is doing the exact same thing. There are plenty of feminists who are just trying to make sure things are fair, for both genders and not trying to get revenge or force men to be in a disadvantaged position, but just equal. But there are plenty who are.

      There are also plenty of white men who are happy with embracing multi-culturism, and equality for both genders, wanting that and not trying to force inequality to benefit their way of life, but there are plenty who are.

      I could go on and on with every single group, it's not appropriate to group everyone of a specific faith, gender or race to this kind of behavior. You need support of the very people you are generalizing.

      You need the help of reasonable rational Muslims to help enlighten, educate their kids, their neighbors the proper way to live without discriminating against people and trying to force change on them. If you alienate them, you'll prove the fanatical sides point.

      People need to start directing their attention on the direct individuals or organizations responsible so that all people from different races, religions and genders can unite to snuff out the bullshit, so we can one day (Probably never remotely in my life time) move forward as a human race.

      Read a good fairy tale. They have some good points. Sometimes the "good" people alienate the very people who could help them,. Evil isn't born, it's created.

    11. Re:Not a win by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Think for a moment what his link was given in response to.

    12. Re:Not a win by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Islam may indeed be another religious choice. But in it's present-day form, it's MUCH more radical than most others. Very few other modern religions still seek to impose their religious beliefs by force in entire COUNTRIES (and exclude the practice of other religions). Even radical Zionists in Israel and Mormons in Utah would draw the line at banning other religions in their countries outright, or in overriding secular civil law entirely with their batshit beliefs. There are an *increasing* number of Muslim countries (and, make no mistake, it IS increasing), where the general populace is all-too-ready to vote in Sharia Law and start burning churches the second they get the chance. And this is not a movement that is weakening in the modern world, it's actually STRENGTHENING.

      There are still voices of moderation in Islam. But I'm no longer convinced that they are the majority, and they are CERTAINLY on the wane.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    13. Re:Not a win by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Don't tar everyone with the brush of extremism. I work/worked with people who are about as Muslim as Jon Stewart is Jewish - they know their heritage and some key words, they celebrate some holidays (especially if older generations are around), and mostly it doesn't matter. On the other hand, the good Christian folks who want "faith-based" laws scare me just as much as the guy interviewed on 60 Minutes last week, insisting that it was his democratic right to tell a woman to cover herself with a hijab AND expect her to comply,

    14. Re:Not a win by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      I'd become pretty damn quiet too if I thought that people would come and rape my wife and daughter, kill my sons, if I spoke about being modern and open to people, respecting other lives.

      I'd much rather say screw what the rest of the world wants and do what I thought would best protect my family.

    15. Re:Not a win by mean+pun · · Score: 2

      What's the difference between Muslims and Christians? Two things, first Christians don't believe that all people are Christian or born as such. Islam dictates that all people are.

      Islam wants all people to be Muslims, and considers Muslims superior. But then, Christianity wants all people to be Christians, and considers Christians superior. Neither religion believes all people are born as such, neither religion dictates that all people are. The mainstream religion, that is. If you search long enough you can find loons that believe anything, including that the earth is flat or the sky is green. It is not so hard to find loons that want to shoot all those dangerous lefty atheists.

      Second, Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Islam has had none.

      Islam has evolved a lot over the centuries, and mixed with local religions all over the world. Many people in for example Iran and Saudi Arabia would like their religious leaders to lighten up, but then there are plenty of Christian flavours that should stop their bible thumping as well.

      Also, your "dangerous holy crusades" were in response to Muslims. More so the out-right slaughter, rape, murder, and forced conversion of Christians in Spain...that had been on-going for nearly 100 years by that time.

      Whereas the Spanish inquisition only used comfy chairs. They're famous for it. And the crusaders were never guilty of out-right slaughter, rape, murder, and forced conversion.

    16. Re:Not a win by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      The problem is that "rational muslims" are considered "not muslims" by a very large segment of the population. And even if you take the most conservative guess based on previous studies you're looking at 25%(that's in western countries) that openly support terrorism, death of apostates, and so on. You look for the same views in other countries, and it varies between 40-70% of support, especially in muslim countries. So while you say evil isn't born, it's created you've got a large swath of people out there who believe their brand of whatever to be the only true view and interpretation of events in the world.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Not a win by digitalchinky · · Score: 2

      It's not about terrorism, it's about mass surveillance and the wildest dreams of people like Robert Hannigan. Osama and others were unpleasant for sure, but they also provided a convenient excuse for an enormous power grab. Every country with one or more three letter agencies were moving firmly in this direction since the early 90's (storage started to get cheap), we'd be in exactly the same place right now anyway, just that nobody would be talking about it.

      This was lost decades ago.

    18. Re:Not a win by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      What sources are you citing for that information though? Every time you watch the news they're going to show you the most shocking and I hate to say it, entertaining people. So they're going to show the hatred, the shock, the disregard for human life.

      I've spoken to a few people who are from israel or Afaganistan, who moved to Canada. It was from them I had a bit better of a perspective as they told me what every day was like in the better parts of the cities they lived in, and how most of the people are.

      The problem is for people who are just trying to live their life and aren't violent, is that the 10% of the violent and nasty people can kill them / ruin their families. It doesn't take a lot of people to control a large population.

      1000-10,0000 people can keep hundreds of thousands of people if not more in line with their beliefs. Why? Because not all of them are going to disagree at once and fight back. It's because a few people are going to disagree, super shitty things are going to happen to them and other people will be afraid to disagree as well, feeling that all they have is their family and no support.

    19. Re:Not a win by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      But sure, there's fanatical people. What's the difference between Muslims and Christians?

      Basically the difference is the name. Put an extreme Muslim next to an extreme Christian and it's hard to tell the difference, same with your everyday Joe Muslim and Johnny Christian. All religions have the potential to have the extremists, even none religious do (only they have to look harder for justification). It just so happens to be the Muslims turn in the spotlight to be 'the baddies' before that the Russians, before that the Germans, before that the Germans again etc etc etc.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    20. Re:Not a win by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what were you saying. The exchange seems to have been (with different people involved in each step of course):

      1. A claim that muslims exhibit the behaviour of "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like".
      2. A claim that being a muslim has nothing to do with "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like".
      3. A source showing some muslims setting an embassy on fire, rioting, and demanding death to some people, because said people expressed a view the muslims didn't like.
      4. A source showing some christians killing people and blowing things up.

      3. is clearly supposed to be evidence for the claim in 1. - you don't have to think it's good evidence, but it is at least clearly about the claim in 1.

      4. On the other hand has nothing to do with either of the claims in 1. or 2. So what were you trying to show by that link?

    21. Re:Not a win by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      the guy interviewed on 60 Minutes last week, insisting that it was his democratic right to tell a woman to cover herself with a hijab AND expect her to comply,

      Well, it IS his democratic right to tell her to do so.

      Likewise, it IS his democratic right to expect her to comply.

      Whether she actually complies or not, well, that's a question of HER democratic rights....

      Note that my own opinion is that she should "comply" by macing him....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    22. Re:Not a win by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The Spanish inquisition has probably killed less people than were killed at the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. And if I remember correctly, they were, in fact, less cruel than the usual legal practices back then.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    23. Re:Not a win by cob666 · · Score: 1

      Why stop there? The Internet aids terrorist groups.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    24. Re:Not a win by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Don't tar everyone with the brush of extremism.

      How dare you point out his hypocrisy!

    25. Re:Not a win by Chas · · Score: 2

      over here in Canada it's not the Muslims bitching and whining, it's the Jews (omg! anti-Semitic!!) - they use hate speech laws to prevent people learning of their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by threatening media organisations.

      Muslim countries didn't trump up charges and go after Assange.
      Muslim countries didn't jail Manning.
      Muslim countries aren't after Snowden.
      Muslim countries didn't jail Drake, Kiriakou, and whistleblowers who exposed the illegal activity of our governments.

      Turn your bloody TV off and stop drinking the anti-muslim propaganda you're being fed to try and turn you into a 'useful idiot'.

      No, they just have guys break in, kidnap him, and then film them cutting off his head with a letter opener. All while talking about how great Allah is.
      And they kill the women he raped for having sex outside of marriage.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    26. Re:Not a win by Tyr07 · · Score: 2

      3. is clearly supposed to be evidence for the claim in 1. - you don't have to think it's good evidence, but it is at least clearly about the claim in 1.

      We need to correct our generalizations elsewise
      http://blogs.vancouversun.com/...
      Men are rapists.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
      Women are husband murders

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
      Women will cheat on you if you have a big penis.

      https://www.ministrymagazine.o...
      Men are christian and battle with their sexuality.

      See the problem with taking one thing and applying to everyone? You're going to piss off a lot of people who had nothing to do with what happened, even if they have something in common like religion, or gender. You need the support of these people to stop these things.

    27. Re:Not a win by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Sure, as I said you don't have to think it's good evidence.

      But that has nothing to do with my actual question: what does christians killing people and blowing things up has to do with the claims?

    28. Re:Not a win by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      One's choice (when it's a choice at all, rather than just going along with what you were raised with or what everyone else is doing) of religion is pretty much orthogonal to one's fanaticism and dangerousness(excluding the ones so marginal that they get essentially zero 'default' members and are built exclusively on recruitment, suicide cults and such).

      That said, there are some historical differences (largely unrelated to the actual theology of the religions involved) that have an impact:

      Most notably, it's hard to overstate just how brutal a beating christianity's status took in Europe between the reformation, the enlightenment, and the destruction of basically all the divine right monarchies by revolution(or the first world war, for the real stragglers). It's not as though the continent was thoroughly secularized or anything; but the notion that a union of church and state would basically be a great idea and that mosaic law should totally be a leading component of the code of law was more or less driven into disrepute (ironically the US, with its very, very, explicit 'No, no state church, don't even think about it, bad idea, just look at Europe...' clause, probably has more popular support for church/state integration than do a variety of European states that actually have a, usually decrepit, legacy state church that they haven't gotten around to defunding yet).

      It's not hard to find people who get up and go on about "This is a Christian Nation!" and "Our laws should be founded on God's Law!" (mostly because they are loud); but they aren't terribly common, and tend to occupy the fringes. Exactly what weight you want to give the various factors of European history in the delegitimization of these ideas is a matter of argument; but it happened.

      By contrast, (and despite having a nasty little schism of their own, as well as abundant other conflicts), the same process has not befallen islam. I don't know why that is so; but it is. The notion that religious law should be enforced by civil power is downright mainstream(and in common practice), heads of state who assert religious legitimacy not uncommon, and enthusiasts with a vision for a unified state/church thing ruling over all the faithful are currently running a zesty little war, rather than, say, Mike Huckabee's campaign.

      This hardly means that all individuals are extremist zealots who loath civil government (indeed, the only religions that actually seem to be able to preach their followers into something other than basically the same population-level grab bag as the guy down the street has are the highly selective ones that are able to do some serious pruning); but for whatever historical reasons, christianity largely lost the fight against civil government, while islam has yet to do so. I don't know why this is; but it definitely does introduce some differences in the expected influence of religious adherents on government.

    29. Re:Not a win by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Don't know about Islam but a few teens recently got into s lot of trouble over posting a video of themselves dancing. I think it was iran- but a google search would say for sure. Posting from my phone so i'm not going to bother at the moment.

    30. Re:Not a win by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Of course I'm a shitty mind reader, I don't have magic powers after all, that would be why I didn't try to read ay minds. The clue to that would the part where I asked for an explanation of what you were trying to say and show with that link rather that just reading your mind, and provided some details about my impressions of the state of the conversation at the time since I didn't assume you could read my mind either.

      Of course now I'm more confused since I don't see what someone being a hypocrite has to do with the relative validity of a couple of conflicting claims.

    31. Re:Not a win by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think the point was that there are sub-groups within most religions that are more reactionary than the majority. To pick another random example there were people celebrating outside the White House when Bin Laden was assassinated, but they are hardly representative of the majority of Americans. Their behaviour is not to be taken as evidence that all Americans are like that.

      Even in places like Pakistan where most of the outrage over the cartoons was, most people didn't give a shit. Sales of US flags and lighters were not particularly high that day.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:Not a win by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I almost forgot about the legacy of the illiterate pedophile. Look up the term thighing and see how far some go with it.

    33. Re:Not a win by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Yes. Really.

      Jeezuz, are you really that dim, or are you just trolling? I can't tell. The behaviors are so similar sometimes.

    34. Re:Not a win by torsmo · · Score: 1

      And the delicious irony of it all is that Belhadj is now going to sue the British government.

    35. Re:Not a win by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are an *increasing* number of Muslim countries (and, make no mistake, it IS increasing), where the general populace is all-too-ready to vote in Sharia Law and start burning churches the second they get the chance. And this is not a movement that is weakening in the modern world, it's actually STRENGTHENING.

      That's not true. Most Muslim countries are becoming less radicalised over time. Even in fairly hardcore places like Iran and Saudi Arabia there is quite a bit of movement, for example with women driving in defiance of the law and agitating for change. There are actually quite a lot of Christians living happily in Iran and Saudi Arabia too, without having their churches burned down.

      Like Christianity before it, Islam is slowly dying as people become more educated. There are sporadic attempts in some places to limit education, but in most places it's inevitable and even encouraged for economic reasons.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:Not a win by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      OK that's a reasonable, if obtuse way of saying it, argument.

      I guess I was applying my standard filter of "muslims" being short hand for "the crazy muslims who actually have a tiny impact on other people, say by forcing their religion on others, and hence matter" as opposed to including my mother in law.. Just like when people are complaining about "christians" I'm assuming they mean "the crazy christians who actually have an impact on other people, say by demanding creationism be taught in science class, and hence matter." as opposed to including my neighbor.

      And yes that's because I'm selfish prick who think cares more about things that might affect me than things that won't.

    37. Re:Not a win by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yep.

      Nobody with a brain cell takes that moonbat rag seriously. Your moniker is not inaccurate.
      Comparing a dozen or two christian abortion-clinic bombers (who are scumbags, yes) to hundreds of thousands of deranged muslims (ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Taliban, etc.) who are raping and beheading thousands and thousands of perfectly innocent people, even their own kind, is a douche move at best with a clearly biased agenda.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    38. Re:Not a win by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Nothing - someone mispercieved your response as a claim that Muslims are inherently more violent than other groups, and things appear to have snowballed from there.

      The reality is, "most generalizations are false, including this one."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    39. Re:Not a win by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      I also need to try and read sentences that I rewrite to remove words that were part of the old version. But given there's an example of that in basically every post I make success seems unlikely.

    40. Re:Not a win by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      the guy interviewed on 60 Minutes last week, insisting that it was his democratic right to tell a woman to cover herself with a hijab AND expect her to comply,

      Well, it IS his democratic right to tell her to do so.

      Likewise, it IS his democratic right to expect her to comply.

      Whether she actually complies or not, well, that's a question of HER democratic rights....

      Note that my own opinion is that she should "comply" by macing him....

      Preferably with an actual mace.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    41. Re:Not a win by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Second, Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Islam has had none. Also, your "dangerous holy crusades" were in response to Muslims. More so the out-right slaughter, rape, murder, and forced conversion of Christians in Spain...that had been on-going for nearly 100 years by that time.

      Glad to see someone else pointing this out, instead of listening to the apologist historical revisionists who cherry pick their history, and act as though nothing lead up to the Crusades except for "christian greed" (okay, that might have been *a* factor, but far from the only or main one); or that somehow 90% of middle east region had willingly, peacefully, converted to Islam, when the area was already the original home of Judaism and Christianity, as well as older pagan religions. Anyone who even read a sliver of the Qu'ran or Hadith would see that is simply not the case, else Mohammad would not have had to have his warriors and engage in battles. Anyone who read up on the Moorish invasions, Charles the Hammer, or the history of the Assassins or Mamluks would also realize this. How the hell did this ever get labeled the "religion of peace" ? No monotheistic religion can make that claim, least of all Islam.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    42. Re:Not a win by Transfinite · · Score: 1

      "remember the holy crusades" What the crusades that started in the year 1095 a good 400 odd years AFTER the Muslims had been wrecking havoc in the middle east all the way into France. The same Crusades that after all the genocide, 1000's of battles, en-forced conversion and slavery by Islam that ultimately promoted a response from Christendom? Plenty of so called Christians aren't really, they are just in name only, the same goes for Muslims. HOWEVER you obviously don't understand that Islam !== Christianity. I suggest you actually see what Islam teaches, you will be shocked / sickened. Is it choice when the punishment for leaving said religion is death? At any rate it has nothing to do with social media, you might as well say that laser pointers, highlighters, post it notes, maps are all aiding and abetting terrorist plans. This is just deflection by the security services. I suggest they get back to doing some leg work, they've got lazy.

    43. Re:Not a win by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      You put you finger on what concerns me- that a smaller number can control the larger population. In that sense, even the moderate muslims could be considered "sleepers"; because if their community goes radical, they either aren't likely to buck the trend, or have much of an option. Many, due to their intense religious upbringing, might be shamed, bullied, or guilted into believing they aren't truly faithful muslims unless they follow the words of their cleric or imam, and judging by the numbers of psychos out there, ostensibly it's not all that difficult to (re)interpret many parts of the Qu'ran as a call to Jihad. When a small immigrated muslim community grows in population (and thus representation and power), they often start stirring the pot and calling for Sharia law, from London to Dearborn, Michigan. Here are just a few examples.
      http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
      and this is really worth a watch:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      That is disturbing.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    44. Re:Not a win by Transfinite · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.naharnet.com/storie... Islam is a dangerous, corrupt quasi-religious political system, founded on lies & murder. You are making the mistake of thinking in, I assume, a Christian world view. Yes a lot of Muslims wont' give a shit, many, many, many of them will .

    45. Re:Not a win by Transfinite · · Score: 2

      Malaysian Muslims are trying to get laws passed now that would forbid any Christian proselytising, they can't take the fact that some Muslims might be waking up:
      http://www.themalaymailonline....

      kettle pot black.
      Just in case you don't realise that Islam is not like the soft fluffy, inclusive, benign Christianity you are used to here is another example: http://mohabatnews.com/index.p...

      FYI I'm an atheist I hold all religions to some degree in contempt, some more than others

    46. Re:Not a win by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      From what I understand about Osama Bin Laden, he knew this is exactly what would happen. He knew all of the players involved and what they desired (he was trained and worked for them for years, after all) and all he had to do was give a catalyst to scare all of us to allow our own wolves to devour us. He may have been a monster but, he was a very intelligent man.

      As far as what another post said, yes, we were already heading this way but, this sped up the clock by a few decades to bring this all here now. In some twisted way, Osama may have done us a favor by making this happen so fast that we are aware of it instead of it feeling like a natural progression. (Note: Do not take this statement as me condoning his actions; I don't.)

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    47. Re:Not a win by Transfinite · · Score: 1

      Islam wants all people to be Muslims, and considers Muslims superior. But then, Christianity wants all people to be Christians, and considers Christians superior

      Christianity has not concept of convert, pay a fine or die though does it. That is a doctrine in the Qua-ran amongst many others that in every possible way confirm to me that the root cause of many of the issues we have to day are due to Islam. It's doctrines, whether they are miss-used, miss-represented is irrelevant. That is what is happening.

      Many people in for example Iran and Saudi Arabia would like their religious leaders to lighten up

      Yes because it hasn't actually evolved / reformed at all. In fact you are NOT allowed to question or critically analyse anything regarding, Mohamed, Qua-ran and therefore Islam

      Whereas the Spanish inquisition only used comfy chairs. They're famous for it. And the crusaders were never guilty of out-right slaughter, rape, murder, and forced conversion.

      Islamic Jihad kills more people every year than the 350 years combined of deaths caused by the Spanish inquisition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    48. Re:Not a win by Transfinite · · Score: 1

      Utter rubbish there are many more verses that talk about what should be done to khafirs. What is it that you think ISIL and Boko Haram are actually doing? They are following their book of instructions.

    49. Re:Not a win by Transfinite · · Score: 1

      Not only illiterate and a paedophile but a thief, murderer, liar. Islam is a made up religion made up from other made up religions. It's like when you take a photocopy of a photocopy. Fucked up.

    50. Re:Not a win by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Islam has had none.

      Which isn't true at all. Islam has gone through many twists and turns and in fact, there are a number of competing 'versions' of Islam duking it out at present. Can't look it up at the moment, but there is an article in The Atlantic online that speaks to that. Plenty of other references as well.

      Personally, I think they're all insane, but I;m obviously a minority.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    51. Re:Not a win by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      First off, being a Muslim has nothing to do with screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like.

      Muslim is a religious choice, and just like Christians or any other religion, there are those who are fanatical about it. They are dangerous, remember the holy crusades?

      There are people who are fanatical who have nothing to do with religion at all, what group do you insult for them?
      There's plenty of Muslims who live in Canada who are perfectly reasonable respectable people who are not violent who appreciate that you have your own way you live your life, and aren't coming to you to force you to change it, and just want to be respected for their way of life like any other religion.

      For many many people being Muslim is NOT a choice; they are born into it. When they reach an age where they are rational enough to be able to decide whether they really want to be Muslim or not they are faced with the option of leaving Islam and being an apostate. The Koran specifies the death sentence for this 'crime'.

      So no, unless you are a convert theres no real choice there.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    52. Re:Not a win by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      " overriding secular civil law entirely with their batshit beliefs."

      Post offices in the US are required to be closed on Sundays because people would gather to talk at the post office instead of the church.

      Trains in Israel are prohibited form running from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday (though you can get a Muslim taxi driver any day of the week).

      "general populace is all-too-ready to vote in Sharia Law and start burning churches"
      As opposed to places where they *already* burn mosques, or restrict marriages or abortions, or even just limit the times and days you can buy beer?

    53. Re:Not a win by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The key word in your rebuttals being "WAS."

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    54. Re:Not a win by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      New studies suggest that terrorists breathe air.

      Ban air!

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    55. Re:Not a win by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1
      Muslims screaming, crying, and killing people as soon as they expressed a view they didn't like?

      Oh, I get it, they weren't arresting people.

      --
      XDInd
    56. Re:Not a win by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately the smallest percentage of people seem to be the loudest who are screaming over everything.

      Or be the ones in power with the ability to arrest people and hand down sentences.

      --
      XDInd
    57. Re:Not a win by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      The difference in American vs. British notions of freedom have been evident since 1776. It's only since 2001 that America seems to have been confused about it's importance.

    58. Re:Not a win by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      Yes, the the generalization of Muslims isn't exactly accurate, but that isn't the main idea here.

      Regardless of whether the post is "politically incorrect" or not, the important thing to remember is that we may eventually become just like the "evil adversary" that we don't want to become, if we continue to go on sacrificing liberties for "safety".

    59. Re:Not a win by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Or be the ones in power with the ability to arrest people and hand down sentences.

      Like most of the world, the ones in power comprise the minority of the population Doesn't feel right does it?

  2. News Flash - Breathing helps terrorists by rtkluttz · · Score: 1

    If only they wouldn't breath our cause would be aided. Get over it gov'ment. Do your work the way your supposed to without invading our privacy and whining over every thing we do that keeps you honest and working for US.. the people. Encryptions protects us from you. We use social media because we like it... etc. etc. etc.

    --
    Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
  3. Meet the new boss... by Kardos · · Score: 1

    .. same as the old boss

  4. Re:Social media by javilon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other news:

    Cars help terrorists: they use them as a means of transport. We should add kill switches and gps units to all cars so the goverment can track every individual car and stop it if needed.

    Subway helps terrorists: They use it as a means of transport. We should force every person using it to identify and keep all this data on a database.

    Houses help terrorists: They use them to hide and to stay warm and to plan new attacks. We should have a camera on every house connected to a government agency so we can track who is in the house and what is he doing.

    Books help terrorists: They read them and get funny ideas. We should create a system where people would identify themselves before reading a book.

    Also, this not only applies to terrorists. It also applies to child molesters, please think of the children.

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  5. Fuck cold fjord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Anonymous reader?" LOL, we know it's you cold fjord. Keep choking down that authoritarian cock you piece of shit. It must surely be tasty.

  6. And remember people... by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Slashdot IS social media, which is why NSA and GCHQ created a fake Slashdot to hack into a Belgian Telecom company.

    You dirty terrorists, you! Bad Slashdot! BAD!

    Seriously, though, this is beyond belief and beyond the pale. Where do they get these morons? Most of these people are guilty of perjury (at best) and outright conflict of interests and gross violations of basic human rights at worst.

    When is this going to stop and when are we going to get rid of these idiots? Where is Senator Franck Church when we need him?

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:And remember people... by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Slashdot IS social media, which is why NSA and GCHQ created a fake Slashdot to hack into a Belgian Telecom company.

      You dirty terrorists, you! Bad Slashdot! BAD!

      I might agree with you there if the fake /. was Beta clone that was full of Bennett's rambling "articles" interspersed with Nerval's dicevertisiments.

      On the other hand I also might feel sorry for the terrorists for being exposed to something like that.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:And remember people... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      When is this going to stop and when are we going to get rid of these idiots?

      Today! I hope... It's your big chance, don't blow it...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. You know what else aids terrorists? by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Electricity, roads, mechanized farming, and every other technology that makes up our modern way of life.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:You know what else aids terrorists? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      As do civil liberties, privacy, and encryption.

    2. Re:You know what else aids terrorists? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Electricity, roads, mechanized farming, and every other technology that makes up our modern way of life.

      That's a good argument for putting the spy chiefs in charge of those things too, then. Like it or not, roads have become the primary means of getting a terrorist to his target - the road people need to accept the new reality. One can never be too safe - try to keep up.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re: You know what else aids terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, if the media is to believed, oil. Apparently the terrorists ( ISIS ) are making North of $1M USD per DAY selling oil.

      So perhaps we should ban oil while we're at it.

      Know what creates the most terrorists of all ?

      FUCKED UP FOREIGN POLICY.

      You know the one where the " civilized " countries bomb, drone, invade and spy on other countries for economic or political gain under the guise of " The War on terror " :/

      Seems we create the problems to further whatever agenda we have. Both at home and abroad.

      Just sayin :D

    4. Re:You know what else aids terrorists? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Don't forget governments - Bin Laden received his initial funding and training from the CIA.

      Every time a government agent points his finger, he's got 3 more pointing right back at himself.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:You know what else aids terrorists? by zlives · · Score: 1

      what helps them the most is the weapons and training we provide them when we want their help... cause then they are freedom fighters.

  8. Simple solution.... by purple_cobra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...get a search warrant. Or, to be a bit more accurate: stop whining about how difficult your job is now and just do what you should have been doing all along. If you are having trouble identifying "persons of interest", that is not my problem. If encryption is too hard for you to break covertly, that is not my problem. If you can't do your job without every single person holding the door open for you to have a look around inside, that is not my problem. See a theme here, Hannigan? You are paid a handsome salary to detect nefarious arseholes who would do damage to the UK and its interests; perhaps you should earn that salary instead of moaning about the IT industry making the life of your staff difficult. If a dragnet is the answer, you are asking the wrong questions.

    1. Re:Simple solution.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, he was complaining about companies like Google and Apple enabling encryption by default in their operating systems, as well as the social network stuff. Certainly encrypted devices are a problem for law enforcement, and no warrant will help them get in if the password is strong and the suspect refuses to divulge it.

      I imagine the result will be the penalty of failing to disclose passwords will shoot up. Currently it is 2 years jail maximum, far less than you would get for terrorism or paedophilia. I expect they will push for a whole life sentence, since anything less is likely to be more attractive than real terrorists and paedophiles handing over the password. People who forgot or cases where the police accidentally destroyed the key are going to be a huge problem though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Simple solution.... by purple_cobra · · Score: 2

      Yeah, refusal to disclose passwords is covered under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (or it was when I was in college, at least); I suspect *that* law will be tweaked (i.e. to cover the same imprisonment terms as the original offence for which you are being investigated, so for murder that might well mean life for not disclosing your password) but there needs to be a *very* tight scope placed on that (i.e. if the police are searching for terrorist propaganda and find a small amount of cannabis at your house, the drug would be confiscated and destroyed but no police/judicial action taken as a result beyond the confiscation (not that I care what people do to themselves if they are consenting adults)). Will that kind of thing happen? Of course not. Laws are (effectively) created by the tabloid press and the various muppets on Mumsnet et al, so we'll get monosyllabic drivel with enough loopholes to drive a fleet of buses through. I'd love to vote these people out but a) I keep voting and all I get as a result is different idiots wearing different coloured ties, and b) you can't vote for the Daily Heil or Mumsnet to keep quiet for a week and just let us get on with our lives.

    3. Re:Simple solution.... by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's still utterly ridiculous. Encryption is intended to protect you from Bad Guys (whether they be governments or simple criminals). If it also makes law enforcement difficult, then so be it; our rights don't just vanish just to make their jobs easier.

      Draconian punishments for refusing to give up passwords would just further reveal them to be freedom-hating scumbags. Hopefully courts in the US would recognize that as a violation of the constitution (other places, I'm not sure).

  9. I agree by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    Not really, but anyway, it's as good an excuse as any to finally get rid of all this social media crap.

  10. Re:Social media by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Not to mention air. All terrorists breathe air (at least until they blow themselves up). Wait a second... I breathe air! Excuse me while I turn myself in as a potential terrorist.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  11. Because Terrorists! by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    Yeah yeah, bad bad bad. Need to stop the bad guys.
    Look! I'm superman, I just saved a bus that was about to die full of school children, but I used my super powers to stop it, so support me.

    Whoa while you were thinking about that, I just saved another school bus full of children. I know you have no proof but that's how good we are. Support us.
    Oh man the WHOLE WORLD almost was destroyed, but us invading your privacy saved it. I know there no evidence, it's secret, so you know, they don't figure out how we saved the whole world and stop us from saving it..but yeah...just hand those freedoms over or next time, they'll get ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE WHOLE WORLD.

    Thank you.

    Although from time to time there might be real threats out there that are stopped but lets face it, there's enough information out there for anyone who wants to actually hurt someone, shoot someone, or blow someone up that it could happen all the time with lots of people dying, and no one able to stop it.

    It's not happening. Why? Because it's not as bad as they'd like us to believe.

    They're more worried about snowden leaks showing how fucking terrible they're being, and being voted out of power. They'd much rather know everything about you so they can scare you about them fucking with your life in legal ways with 'investigations' and other thins to torment you so you don't oust their power through legitimate means one day.

    Just take a look at videos of what police do to people who obey the laws and refuse to give them information, ID and other things because they don't have to. This is just the evolution of that.

  12. Re:Because... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Because... Terrorists!

    Root Access To Society Granted.

    Would you like to A) Pass oppressive new laws that otherwise wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing?, B) Accumulate more power to yourself, eroding Democracy while claiming to protect it?, or C) Both at the same time?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  13. Water aids terrorists by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Drinking water allows terrorists to remain hydrated, even in dry environments! Social media aid those who use them.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:Water aids terrorists by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Almost every murder, terrorist act or bad thing has been committed within 24 hours of drinking water or a water based product! Something must be done!

      http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  14. Of course it is. by robbak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The largest means of support for terrorist groups is the U.S. Dollar. Perhaps we should get rid of that, too.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  15. J'accuse! by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    It's not only social media sites, it's the whole internet! Giving everyone a way to communicate with others makes it impossible to control the terrorists.

    And not only the terrorists, also the pedofiles, the drug lords, all kinds of criminals can communicate using the internet.

    We're in a slippery slope that ends in total chaos.

    A slippery slope that started with the telephone.

    Every technological advance beyond what we had at the end of the 19th century is inherently evil and has to be destroyed. It's so obvious that only terrorists and other criminals have a reason to deny it.

    -

    Or, in other words, why the fuck are we listening to the director of the signals intelligence and cryptography agency? Everything that comes out of his mouth has necessarily to be a lie.

    1. Re:J'accuse! by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      I think you'd have to go back at least to Gutenberg. Gave the power to individuals to create many copies in hours rather than single copies in years.

  16. Re:Social media by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    A lack of access to birth control helps terrorists breed even more terrorists.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  17. Also by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    This just in!
    Also aiding Terrorists:
    1. Air
    2. Food
    3. Water
    4. Pillows
    5. Gravity
    6. The sun

    1. Re:Also by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This just in!
      Also aiding Terrorists:
      4. Pillows

      Nah, terrorists are Real Men (tm). They don't need pillows.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Also by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Item 0 should be: Politicians making ridiculous claims about what aids terrorists.

  18. question by JigJag · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did Mr. Hannigan say "that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden"?

    I'm still not sure yet.

    --
    "The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
  19. Arab Spring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I recall how these same social networks were highly praised for their value in helping those that needed to break out of oppression get around the roadblocks that local intelligence agencies were trying to quell.

    1. Re:Arab Spring? by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      Yes, isn't it interesting how just that time the media was touting the power of "social media networks" in organizing protests?
      Funny how now they claim it "aids terrorists". Doesn't that sound like something, say, some certain oppressive dictators would say?

  20. Re:DEFINE YOUR ACRONYMS by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    more or less, the British equivalent of the NSA.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  21. A clever omission by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    What he doesn't mention is that the existing powers of the government(s) are already more than sufficient. In cases where there is good reason to watch someone, the processes existed even before the attacks on the US. If one reads the US Congress report on the 9/11 attacks, it is striking to see how much these guys were already under surveillance. There is no example of 'we had a viable suspect and some legal barrier kept us from closing the case'. And the Boston Marathon bombings showed us how useful the global Internet surveillance has been. In other words, Mr Hannigan and his ilk don't need any more power. The existing powers are demonstrably more than sufficient. The fact that they keep asking for more power tells us more about them than about the threat of terrorists.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:A clever omission by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Part of the process was broken, although giving LEO's more powers doesn't really address it. The big failure happened when individuals the CIA were watching and tracking entered the USA. Instead of bringing the FBI onboard and getting them to watch the terrorists, they kept it secret, hoping that the terrorists would leave the country where they could bust them for whatever it was they were planning. So now we get the department of homeland security which is supposed to handle all of it so that there aren't edge cases where one agency will keep another in the dark to hog all the glory of a bust. All we really needed though was a harch public smackdown of all of the management and glory hounds that caused the whole mess and some bit of law saying that agencies absolutely must hand off cases and intelligence to other agencies when it crosses jurisdictional boundaries.

  22. Re:Yes theyve been helping terrorists by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

    Who is "we"? It looks to me like most people are voting solely based on hot button issues like abortion, and even worse, they're continuing to vote for Republicans and Democrats. The people who take a stand and refuse to vote for scumbags, as well as protest and donate to organizations like the EFF and ACLU, are few and far between.

  23. Lions, tigers, and bears oh my by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Paper helps terrorists make plans, maps help them find their way, cars help them get there, air helps them breath, food helps them grow, playing cars stave off their boredom, blah blah blah.

    I would say that supporting tinpot dictators in these countries has probably been the #1 factor in creating these guys, with any #2 being such a distant second that it hardly counts. Yet it is these very same "security" agencies that have been patting themselves on the back as they trained and supported the secret police in all these countries. Using terms like "Realpolitik" to justify their actions.

    Well sorry, you don't let the serial killer go just because he also runs an after-school program for the kids. Or even if he happens to own an oil well or two.

    Plus it wouldn't be social media that the top terrorist dogs use. Those guys would be using couriers running around on motorcycles with cryptic notes. The only people that are using social media that these KGB types are scared of are new peaceful political movements that might organized to create a society that doesn't give them the free hand that they enjoy today and hope for tomorrow. Including movements in countries where they enjoy tight relationships with the corrupt evil regimes that have their boots on the throats of their people now.

    Think about how much effort the American security services have spent going after Occupy NY whereas how little effort they have spent going after any police who violated the civil rights of those same protesters. That is the social media they seek to control.

  24. Social media absolutely helps terrorists by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    There are actually a few other things that help terrorists;

    Mobile phones, telephones, radio waves, email, speech, pens, paper, smoke signals...actually who is this idiot?

    Instead of arresting social media site owners, forums users and people with "illegal thoughts"; let's arrest all the senior officials that new the GCHQ are spying on their own via the NSA and arrest senior NSA officials for knowingly spying on their own via the GCHQ.

    You cannot talk to these people because they are "at war" like so many radical groups against different ideas.

    When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  25. You know what else helps... by dablow · · Score: 1

    ....terrorists? Air. Therefore we should ban air, and anybody caught breathing air will be jailed under suspicion of being a terrorist. A study conducted from whatever think tank you like showed that all terrorists have this 1 common feature; they breathe air. Intelligence agencies have suggested that by targeting air, we can help reduce the threat of terrorism and are calling for close cooperation with trees and plants to help weed out the problem.

    1. Re:You know what else helps... by dablow · · Score: 1

      Ah crap realized that somebody posted the same thing earlier.

  26. Re:Social media by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    so we install cameras in every bedroom to see if they're fucking with condoms or not?

    I mean, that's basically what it goes to. Government agencies having agents who have access to information about who fucks who and how they fuck, with no oversight. It's better than having cameras in the bedrooms since this way they'll get even people who aren't fucking at home but at love hotels etc.

    and why they would be interested in that is that information gives power over many people, especially if they at the same time run propaganda for a conservative 'no sex or naughty stuff' fashion.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  27. It' not unique by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    Terrorists commandeer many of society's tools. From Boeings to biology to printing presses, almost any tool that serves a society can be turned by terrorists to serve their ends.

  28. Cars Aid Terrorsist by tomxor · · Score: 2

    Sandwiches Aid Terrorists

    Toothpaste Aid Terrorists

    HD TVs Aid Terrorists

    Sleep Aids Terrorists

    Coffee Aids Terrorists

    Money Aids Terrorists

    ...Another fact we all now know: Robert Hannigan is a fuckwit... and you can probably find a reason that he in some way also aids terrorists.

  29. Original Article by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Also, this not only applies to terrorists. It also applies to child molesters, please think of the children.

    I found the original article
    The web is a terrorist's command-and-control network of choice

    I understand why [the private sector] have an uneasy relationship with governments. They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.

    Yup, he rings that bell.

    To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of human behaviour on the internet, it can seem that some technology companies are in denial about its misuse. I suspect most ordinary users of the internet are ahead of them: they have strong views on the ethics of companies, whether on taxation, child protection or privacy; they do not want the media platforms they use with their friends and families to facilitate murder or child abuse.

    Three times in total.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  30. Really? by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

    Copied directly from TFS:

    Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

    C'mon man. How can you screw up the summary that badly? There are only 3 damn sentences and we still can't avoid a dupe.

    Slashdot: The only place you can have a dupe in a single summary.

  31. Don't worry, you're safe here on slashdot! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Intelligence agencies are well aware that no worthwhile discussions happen here any more, so they won't read what you write here. Of course, neither will anyone else...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  32. I'm so tired of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This whole topic is flawed. Do you know who the real terrorists are? The corrupt US government. If we would get our troops out of these foreign countries and leave them alone 90% of this "terrorist" problem would go away. How would we like it if foreign soldiers set up camp on American soil and randomly started blowing things up in order to make the country safe for rich corporations to exploit. Why are we surprised that they hate us when the American military has directly killed their loved ones in order to increase US corporate profits? We are not in their country to protect their citizens, we are there to steal their stuff (or get it at a substantial discount). You want peace in the middle east then get the hell out. Stop trying to install puppet dictators in order to lower the price of crude oil exported to the US. Stop supplying weapons to BOTH sides of a conflict in order for the weapon makers to get obscene profits. They will happily go back to killing each other instead of trying to kill us.

  33. Paper, envelopes and snail mail aid terrorists and by Hey_Jude_Jesus · · Score: 1

    banksters.Let's clamp down on who can use them! :rolleyes:

  34. Re:Social media by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    In related news, the new GCHQ head also said that he hoped the terrorists don't decide to set up their meetings in police break rooms. That would be worse than using social media, because then they'd also get free coffee and donuts. In the meantime, he has mentioned the possibility of saving you all from the terrorists by expanding surveillance powers to include social media access to private messages without a warrant (or rather doing so legally).

    I'm from the US, can someone from the UK verify that the above cynicism is accurate for your country as it would be for ours?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  35. I have a better solution by koan · · Score: 1

    Stop using "social media" and it's inherently artificial sociality altogether, and start doing face to face instead.

    Killing 2 birds with one stone.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  36. Yikes by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    As an anti-libertarian, I'll have a bob each way by saying that while we must accept that after September 11, "business as usual" isn't going to fly (if you'll pardon the pun), this is a pretty poor start from a man who ought to know better.

    Absolute privacy ain't gonna happen in this day and age, but Mr Hannigan needs to make it clear they will be held thoroughly accountable by the people they're meant to be serving. To do otherwise would shred any remaining legitimacy they have.

  37. Derp by s.petry · · Score: 1, Informative

    Russia does not have anti-gay laws, you can be gay in Russia all you want and nobody cares. In fact the Daily show went out with a camera crew during the Sochi games trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people (in both Sochi and Moscow) and could not find any. That report was not discussed on any major News station of course, but it's there for your review as are other people doing similar reporting trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people.

    What Russia does have is laws that prevent gays from demonstrating and promoting being gay in places where minors visit. You can go to the gay bar where it's adults only and put up all the banners you want promoting being gay, but not on a public street. It would be akin to the US making fast food advertising illegal (which in some contexts it is), then claiming that the US made fast food illegal. The latter is false, the former is true.

    In my opinion, this is not discriminating or oppressive. It would be discriminating and oppressive if they had competing "Hetero Pride" and "Gay Pride" parades, or "Hetero Lifestyle" and "Gay Lifestyle" public debates and only one side received talk time. Neither receive talk time, which seems to be a fair policy.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      "In my opinion, this is not discriminating or oppressive."

      That's because you're discriminating and oppressive so your opinion is based on an abnormal starting point. Assad, Gaddafi, Putin, Stalin, and the Kim Jong dynasty probably don't think anything they do is oppressive either, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.

      "It would be discriminating and oppressive if they had competing "Hetero Pride" and "Gay Pride" parades, or "Hetero Lifestyle" and "Gay Lifestyle" public debates and only one side received talk time. Neither receive talk time, which seems to be a fair policy."

      Yeah or like if two straight Russians kiss in the street and it's all good but if two gay ones do so then they get beaten up and then arrested for their crime of "promoting gay rights".

      Tell me again how that's not discriminatory and not an anti-gay law given that you're not allowed to do something if you're gay in Russia that straight people do all the time?

      Why not just say what you really mean - that you hate gays and agree with their oppression in Russia and cut the bullshit in the middle? You'd save yourself so much more typing and you'd be putting the exact same message across. Far more efficient.

    2. Re:Derp by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      LOL, there are no anti-gay laws in Russia ... except when they are cited explicitly by government officials as a reason for removing a statue of Steve Jobs because Tim Cook announced that he is gay. Let me guess, Russia didn't invade and illegaly annex the Crimea either?

      I guess it's time for you to turn off your reality distortion field.

    3. Re:Derp by s.petry · · Score: 1

      A political decision to remove a statue because of public pressure is now a "law"? Did we pass new laws in Iraq when we pulled down statues of Saddam Hussein, or did we remove the statues because they celebrated something that the populace saw as wrong? Did the Ukraine pull down statues of Stalin and Lenin because of "Laws", or because public opinion of those people changed?

      I'm pretty sure that the answer to both of those questions would match the answers to removing the statue of Steve Jobs. Hint: It's not myself using distorted view, it's you.

      I realize it's difficult to see a balanced field, especially coming from the US where any statement that does not appeal to a minority is automatically labelled "discrimination". The fact that you can't tell the difference between "Law" and public pressure is telling in and of itself.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Derp by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Russia didn't invade and illegaly annex the Crimea either?

      I should have also pulled this little gem out, because it demonstrates your absolute ignorance. Crimea voted with almost 90% margin to annex to Russia. Crimea leases numerous ports and bases to Russia for profit, so this magical invasion that CNN claimed never happened. Ships that were already there remained there, troops that were on bases remained in bases. You can't even keep the difference between Donesk and Crimea in your dialogue.

      When a vote does not move the way the US wants the vote to move, the vote is claimed to be bad. There are numerous precedents with this scenario which are all historically documented. Have a look at the history of US and Iranian relationships for example.

      That should not indicate that pressure was not exerted by Russia, but that pressure is no different than what the Ukraine has been getting from the US and EU nations. Neither side actually gives a shit about the people in the Ukraine or Crimea, they want power and control.

      In conclusion, you are either yet another horribly misinformed person believing what they are told or a shill.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Derp by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      In fact the Daily show went out with a camera crew during the Sochi games trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people (in both Sochi and Moscow) and could not find any.

      Yeah, that doesn't sound stunt-y at all. Because obviously they're going to be walking down the street wearing T-shirts saying "I am an oppressed gay person" in English, right? Especially during the Olympics when the host country has no investment whatsoever in maintaining a clean-cut image.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:Derp by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Crimea voted with almost 90% margin to annex to Russia.

      ...in an election the other side boycotted.

      *headdesks*

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    7. Re:Derp by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Keep on hitting, it can't hurt. When the same issue occurred in Donesk it resulted in bombardment and murder of thousands people who were against the new government in the Ukraine. You know, the same Government that had people going into parliament with an AK-47s as the new "leaders" and said "Yeah, we have a democracy if we do it my way and if not you are dead.", pro Russian people were beaten and killed, etc... So Kiev in your opinion is okay right? It's only the people on the other side that are bad, because they don't believe what you do.

      Sucks when a look at both sides of the story does not match your opinion, so hurry up and say it. "I refuse to see both sides"

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:Derp by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I never said I was on the side of Kiev, mister, I'm just NOT on the side of Russia.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    9. Re:Derp by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you admit your biases, it's a good first step. Accusing others of bias using your own bias is exactly the proverbial pot calling the kettle black isn't it?

      I don't claim Russia is great or better than anyone else, I don't believe they are. At the same time, I don't agree that the US or UK is much better than Russia any longer (we have gained a lot of ground in being shit in the last couple decades). Funny that when I started to step back from the rhetoric about 3 decades ago I started to see both sides as similar. People are trained in bigotry, not humanity, and that's a huge problem with the state of the world.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    10. Re:Derp by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's going to be awfully hard to convince me that 90% of Crimeans wanted to join Russia; there's many more than 10% in ethnic groups that historically hate and fear Russia. Therefore, it seems to me that the election was way unrepresentative of popular opinion, and therefore it's pretty much meaningless. It just feels to me like the Anschluss plebiscite after the German invasion of Austria in 1938.

      For all I know, the majority of Crimeans wanted to be in Russia, but I have no good evidence for that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  38. Pot meets Kettle by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us... Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed...

    I agree fully. Things such as social media and cell phones are priceless boons to those governments which aggressively meddle in the affairs of other nations while persistently spying on their own citizens. It's good to see Mr. Hannigan admitting on behalf of his country how "transformational" the latest technology has been for him and his masters.

    People and countries that complain about the sword cutting both ways, should just stop living by the sword.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  39. Re:Social media by sahuxley · · Score: 1

    Freedom is scary. If people don't like it, perhaps they don't belong in the home of the brave.

  40. Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Social Media Aids Terrorists"

    So do Vehicles, Phones and Hotels....so what ?
    Seems to me that the spooks have far more at hand to use against them when they are using Social Media
    instead of hiding in the shadows.....

    If they really wanted to Stop ISIL and all other groups, they should go talk to their Money Backers in Saudi Arabia etc....and Freeze their damn bank accounts.
    With no cash sources or banking institution willing to do business with them, they'll come crashing down....

    This whole thing is just another bad joke.....I wish I could believe in ET.

  41. Re:Social media by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    No it does not.

    I mean you would have a point if they actually followed it but if that was the case, we wouldn't have all the NSA spying, the IRS being used to stop dissent, or the post office with their own swat teams. In fact, a lot of things would be different if the constitution was followed and could actually help terrorists.

  42. So do cars by booch · · Score: 1

    Cars also help terrorists. Maybe we should consider restrictions on them too, to make sure they can't be used for terrorism. And guns help terrorists. I certainly don't see the Americans raising a fuss about that. Curiously, the UK doesn't seem to be raising a fuss about that either. Heck, western governments frequently help terrorists. Perhaps we should address that one first.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  43. Libertarian by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    If you are in the US and don't vote Libertarian, where a candidate is available, then you are continuing the corrupt two party system. Otherwise, follow the old advice: If they're in, vote 'em out. Every time.

  44. Sure it does, but it aids businesses more by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    so there's nothing to be done about it.

  45. Re:Social media by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Informative

    The UK has already banned any information which might be useful to a terrorist. Literally, thats what the law says.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  46. he's right by Tom · · Score: 2

    Dispite the sensationalistic headline, he's actually spot on:

    "'However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us."

    True. He's not saying social media is aiding terrorists. He says that terrorists use the same tools that normal people use, too.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  47. No need for discrimination by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Russia does not have anti-gay laws...What Russia does have is laws that prevent gays from demonstrating and promoting being gay in places where minors visit.

    True but don't those laws explicitly single out gays for the restriction and so are the very text book definition of discrimination? The general principle that you do not want adults going about and loudly announcing their sexuality where minors are present is perfectly reasonable. However if you want to do it in a non-discriminatory way you ban anyone going around and promoting their sexuality where minors are present regardless of what that sexuality is.

    1. Re:No need for discrimination by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1
      So what you are saying, is that even though the law is specifically stating that only a gay parade is illegal, it's not discrimination since straight people haven't tried to hold their own parade?

      By that logic, we could pass a law that states that only blacks are not allowed to smoke crack. Since whites don't smoke crack, it's not a discriminatory law.

      --
      XDInd
    2. Re:No need for discrimination by s.petry · · Score: 1

      By that logic, we could pass a law that states that only blacks are not allowed to smoke crack. Since whites don't smoke crack, it's not a discriminatory law.

      Oh, so you make up a complete lie to back the point huh? Sad that your opinion relies on complete bullshit like this to remain valid.

      Would Russia's laws regarding promotion of LGBT issues be better if it removed the wording and just said "no promoting any type of sexual lifestyle"? It would make a few people happy, but the reality is that nobody else is out parading and promoting their sexual preferences except for the LGBT community. Does a generality make sense given that fact? I don's see Mormon's parading to promote Polygamy, I don't see any racial group parading to promote interracial sex partners, and I don't see elderly people out parading to promote sex with barely legal teenagers. Those type of people all exist, and we can surely think what ever we want about their beliefs, but they are not out promoting. If they were out parading, perhaps we would see the Russian laws changed to a generality or include a different group name in addition to "gay".

      Lets look at the definition of discrimination. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.. By definition, it would only be a biased law if there were competing groups and "Straights" and/or "Polygamists" and/or "interracial sex advocates", etc.. who were allowed to parade and the LGBT groups were not allowed to parade. There is no measure to say it's discriminating, outside of the wording which happens to specify a group that was not acting the same way as the rest of society. So in reality, would allowing them to parade and demonstrate be the discrimination? Is society going to be better off if all of these beliefs are paraded around and celebrated, or should that be an individual decision and choice?

      Oh, I realize that this is rational and logical so you will probably make up something else to maintain your belief. If I don't buy your magazine, it's because I'm a bigot and not because your stories are not interesting or your writing is horrible.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:No need for discrimination by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I gave the perfect example of where it would be discrimination. Gay parade squashed and Straight parade is allowed.

      ...and this is exactly what the law does: it squashes gay parades only, straight parades are allowed. If the real aim of the law is to protect minors from adults running around in the streets openly declaring their sexuality then ban that. The fact that there are no 'straight pride' parades is irrelevant. Anti-rape laws do not specify that it is only illegal for a man to rape a woman because the point of the law is to criminalize rape regardless of gender despite the fact the the reverse case is almost unheard of.

      However if this is what Russia wants then that's its business but please don't try to pretend it is not discriminatory: it is by your own definition. As for the US their society is massively polarized. It hardly matters what point of view you express you will be ostracized by the extremists on one side or the other. However they have had such an appalling human rights record recently that I hardly think they will make much of a fuss about Russia's choice to discriminate: all you have to do is mention free speech, imprisonment without trail, torture, secret renditions etc. etc.

    4. Re:No need for discrimination by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You didn't quote me so you either assume something that does not exist or neglected to cite the dictionary definition of discrimination. As I said to someone else...and yes my definition of discrimination matches exactly the dictionary definition.

      Would Russia's laws regarding promotion of LGBT issues be better if it removed the wording and just said "no promoting any type of sexual lifestyle"? It would make a few people happy, but the reality is that nobody else is out parading and promoting their sexual preferences except for the LGBT community. Does a generality make sense given that fact? I don's see Mormon's parading to promote Polygamy, I don't see any racial group parading to promote interracial sex partners, and I don't see elderly people out parading to promote sex with barely legal teenagers. Those type of people all exist, and we can surely think what ever we want about their beliefs, but they are not out promoting. If they were out parading, perhaps we would see the Russian laws changed to a generality or include a different group name in addition to "gay".

      Lets look at the definition of discrimination. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.. By definition, it would only be a biased law if there were competing groups and "Straights" and/or "Polygamists" and/or "interracial sex advocates", etc.. who were allowed to parade and the LGBT groups were not allowed to parade. There is no measure to say it's discriminating, outside of the wording which happens to specify a group that was not acting the same way as the rest of society. So in reality, would allowing them to parade and demonstrate be the discrimination? Is society going to be better off if all of these beliefs are paraded around and celebrated, or should that be an individual decision and choice?

      Your claim that "straight pride parades are allowed" is wrong, because there is no such thing. There are no polygamy parades, or cougar parades either. Those are all mythical, and no you can't compare tangible measurable reality against myth. You may as well argue that the German Pillsner laws are discriminating because a mythical creature can piss beer (unfortunately for you, that is an absolutely correct analogy).

      I have not done so, but another interesting thing to do would be to translate the law from Russian to English and see for yourself. It's not like we ever get "wrong" information for propaganda purposes in US media or anything..

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  48. "Social Media Aids Terrorists" ... by BrianPRabbit · · Score: 1

    ... So does breathing. What's the point?

  49. Freedom Aids Terrorists by k2r · · Score: 2

    so let's get rid of it.

  50. Resourcefulness by Livius · · Score: 1

    Terrorists can find ways to use any technology that's been developed in the last 5 000 years.