Slashdot Mirror
Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven
An anonymous reader writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "Internet companies are allowing their networks to be used to plot "murder and mayhem", David Cameron has said in response to the official inquiry into the intelligence agencies' actions ahead of the killing of Lee Rigby. He demanded that internet companies live up to their social responsibilities to report potential terror threats and said there was no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism. His comments to the House of Commons came after the parliamentary intelligence and security committee concluded that the brutal murder of Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed "in the most graphic terms" his intention to carry out an Islamist jihadi attack.
Because of all the horrific deaths that have occurred just today.
Oh, and think of the children.
For allowing them water, air... The sun too!
Here we go, those two plus fighting copyright infringement are the magic keys to the kingdom. The fascists and despots can use those pretty much anywhere to bypass all laws and protections.
If we don't stop the copyright-infringing terrorist pedophiles the world will end, so as a result, we can get access to everything just to be safe.
The scary thing is these guys either don't understand, or don't care, about how much they're undermining the rest of the law and society. Instead they figure the surveillance state is necessary to protect us from the bad guys.
Sorry, but the governments are becoming the bad guys and the threat to our freedoms. And they don't care.
Face it, the terrorists effectively won, and destroyed our freedoms, and now our own societies are pretty much turning on themselves.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Give up all of your freedom and privacy for safety. Companies should mindlessly cooperate with the government, because the government is always good, and as everyone in truly free countries know, freedom is simply less important than safety.
I've heard that vocal chords, smoke signals, hand signs, tin cans .... can all be used to transmit nefarious terrorist messages. They should all be banned or otherwise opened up to the government.
Yes they are aiding terrorists. Unfortunately, the terrorists are nation-states like the US and UK lead by people like Cameron who use terror to attempt subjugate their populations and take away freedoms.
HSBC's leadership are doing life in prison without the possibility of parole for helping Iran evade sanctions when Iran is one of the top state sponsors, right?
"to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism."
Slippery slope here we come.
What makes it more enduring is when people say such laws would not be abused, and believe it.
blah ... safety ... SAFETY ....blah ... blah .... (translation: we want total surveillance and a police state) and TEWWOISTS and ... did I say TEWWOISTS? And THINK OF THE CHILDREN (translation: elect me, elect ME because I care about YOUR SAFETY and those of your young chattels, you mindless surfs).
Tools can be used for good an evil. Too bad your dad couldn't have used his for good.
Serious note:
But this is ridiculous. Companies should be explicitly looking for terrorism now? Deontologically? Nice card. What defines a potential terrorist threat. It could be anything. This is nothing but government putting pressure on Facebook and other companies.
"He demanded that internet companies live up to their social responsibilities to protect their users' privacy"- FTFY
bullshit on top of nonsense. It doesn't work for physicists any better than it does for political hacks.
What's his point? Are internet companies supposed to be monitoring everything? They are supposed to be responsive when the authorities request it with a suitably justified warrant. I can't see any reason to go beyond that. And if law enforcementcan't justify the invasion of privacy with a warrant then they shouldn't be given a blank cheque to monitor any and everything.
As helpful and entertaining as it would be to have them monitor legislators 24/7 for the mere possibility of criminal activity, I wouldn't support that either.
This is the most irresponsible and inconsiderate answer on this important topic.
Terrorists? Seriously? What about child molesters? What kind of monster would hide the safe havens for child molesters behind the cover of terrorism?
Cameron has revealed himself as either a pedo or incompetent to fight online child pornography.
Some have pointed out the explicit invocation of the slippery slope, but it is worse than that.
His comments to the House of Commons came after the parliamentary intelligence and security committee concluded that the brutal murder of Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed "in the most graphic terms" his intention to carry out an Islamist jihadi attack.
This is not the same as blocking access to child porn sites. He is calling for the content of all packets to be inspected for unapproved speech.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
...Cameron can best be described as a right pratt...
His comments to the House of Commons came after the parliamentary intelligence and security committee concluded that the brutal murder of Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed "in the most graphic terms" his intention to carry out an Islamist jihadi attack.
It's a good thing that there has never, ever in the history of communication been an incident where anyone expressed in graphic terms their intention to carry out something that they weren't actually going to do.
In the end, this is just trying to blame hindsight. "Now that [insert horric event] has occured, we've found evidence that [insert person doing horrific event] was doing things that now appear obvioius that he would do terrible things." However, just because people want to do horrible things, it doesn't make them a criminal. If we were punished for every malicious thought we had, then many people would never see the light of day again.
your terrorist is my freedom fighter
Well, since we're tying freedom and privacy directly to child abuse, now, I guess it's time that the ISPs stop cooperating on that front, too.
What? The logic doesn't work in reverse? I guess it's shitty logic, then, huh?
Haven't I seen this authoritarian fuck on here before? Someone please kill him so I don't have to read about his stupid "thoughts" ever again.
...of the UK to make the U.S. look normal by comparison.
They already are completely tapped into the networks and have "Total Information Awareness." So why try and blame telcos for govt. spies failure to sift through the dragnet and find the real terrists?
Not just internet companies but the postal service and telephone providers. Things get worse, plots have been discussed in renal houses, hotel rooms, and cafes. CAn you imagine all these people allowing a safe haven, not to mention the paper and pen manufacturers that allow themn to write messages, the food producers that nourish them and the highways agency allowing them to drive to destinations.
When I read Cameron's bluster? http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net...
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are very reluctant to actually remove videos and messages calling for murder of others, or depicting such things, when they are posted by islamics or islamic supporters. Go ahead and find yourselves a video calling for Jews to be murdered, and TRY to get the video/channel/tweeter account removed/banned... you'll most likely get the famous Youtube response "no violation of our guidelines could be found". Now post something that would be considered "racist" against, say Blacks, or islam, by some white dude... it will be removed within the hour...
Where these terrorist not living in the UK at the time? If so, how come the UK government provided a safe haven for them to operate and discuss their plans?
... "our snooping methods suck."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Do you really think your voters are so stupid? Do you really think they still believe your bull about "protection from terrrrrists"? Or do you even drink your own cool aid?
Tell me, do you think we're stupid, or are you? And bluntly, it's not a false dichotomy. There are really only these two options.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How come Cameron, being the PM and all, not be held fully responsible for his inability to prevent UK resident to perpetrate terrorist acts on the very sole he's in charge of? After all, he's the one with intelligence services and such, stampeding the privacy of the very people that elected him. Would all this just mean that he violated fundamental rights of the British people to no avail?
you know who the real terrorists were? Bush & Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice, and their manservant Tony Blair. Waging an illegal and immoral war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, they bombed innocent civilians and encouraged the spread of terrorism which did not exist under the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. by ignoring history and not understanding the dangers of a power vacuum, they fucked up the middle east and made all of us less safe.
so David Cameron, shut your pie hole.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
When I saw the name Cameron in the headline I thought of James Cameron.
To trick people into thinking they don't already have access.
People behave differently when they know they are being watched.
How to tell when David Cameron spouts bullshit:
It's when he moves his lips.
when you let me monitor all your communications for a couple of months...
I might think about letting you look at mine..
in the meanwhile ...
FUCK OFF!!!
He who lives by the lack of privacy, should have none.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'm tired of politicians beating the {jihadi|pedo|copyright} drum. You can use a pipe wrench to provide clean water or you can beat someone to death withit, but that's no reason to outlaw pipe wrenches.
You can also use telephones to arrange contract killings. Let's ban them.
On second thought, maybe we could use our phones and internet servers to get rid of annoying politicians.
"Terrorism" is defined by the government, and subject to the fluidity that we all know exists within political definitions of terms. (Remember when terrorism was defined as people crashing planes into things?) However, "child abuse" is a fairly solid and objective term with a clear definition.
... please accept my apologies. We can't seem to get anyone elected to lead our nation who has any knowledge or experience of anything other than backstabbing, deceit, and bluster. I hope it goes without saying that we know this fool Cameron knows absolutely nothing about software, and cares absolutely nothing about human rights - no matter how much hot air he emits about them.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Imagine the amount of mayhem being tacitly supported by makers of paper and pens.
Politicians think they are right to demand control of behavior because it is, theoretically possible. They don't seem to appreciate that their model for the online world is flawed: it's not like physical space, compact and easily policed. The net is a communication medium, which can no more be policed than paper, phones or *air* can be cleaned of mayhem...
Ah, that old chesnut, get the voters on the politicians side by making the chattering classes worried about the hacker-paedo-terrorists lurking on the internet about reach down the internet wires and seduce/blow up their children. Dave and Theresa May can bugger off. "Boo hoo, the hacker-paedo-terrorists are out there and we only nailed 75 of them last year we need more powers!". Balls! The powers you have allowed to you nail those 75, why do you need more?!
This is only the beginning
In other news, stores call the police when they see a patron beating her kid to a pulp but they do not call the police when someone buys a single pre-paid cell phone or gift-prepaid-debit-card when they know or should know that terrorists use burner cell phones and prepaid debit cards.
Governments pull people over if they see a kid tied to the roof of a car going down the highway but they don't pull over someone whose trunk lid is shut even though they know good and well that terrorists carry weapons in their car trunks.
To the few of you who think I seriously advocate a police state, yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
People attempting to escape the UK, like "Children of Men"...but so they can use the Internet as they wish
On a slightly different topic, wasn't "George Orwell", the author of "1984", from the UK??
"magic word" -> warned
So, if phone companies had "passed on" conversations between terrorists, terrorist attacks would have been prevented, right?
The problem, as the NSA now knows well, is the sheer impossibility of sifting all the data even with egregiously complete access.
Jesus fucking christ what a moron.
His intelligence services dropped the ball. End of story.
"...reading every comment ever made on all of the Internet fora and passing along potential terrierist threats to the government!"
Exactly how does the idjit Cameron think an ISP is supposed to do this? Doesn't your vaunted government capture of everything that transpires on the Internet work any more?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
It seems like a number of politicians these days have this strategy of boldly saying things that don't stand up to scrutiny, but as long as they say them confidently enough and call you a traitor for disagreeing, it mostly works.
He demanded that internet companies live up to their social responsibilities
I would argue that the "social responsibility" he proposes does not exist. Why do ISPs supposedly have to manage access to content hosted in other countries? Why can't they just be "pipes"? If people want to see offensive things, I say fucking let them. (And see also the multitudinous posts above about how anything can be used for evil.)
to report potential terror threats
Oh, so of course they need to be reading our communications all the time looking for sarcastic comments they can nail us to the wall over. Great.
and said there was no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism.
Oh look, when we* fold for one thing we get called traitors for not supporting, they immediately snowball it into another thing and feed us the same line. I assume by "child abuse" he actually means "child porn," even the kind that is animated and in no way hurts any actual children. And that, y'know, are already covered under non-invasive laws anyway.
The greater threat to democracy these days is our own politicians, rather than anything the terrorists can do to us. Seems like half our own fucking representatives don't even believe in democracy as anything other than a vehicle to get themselves more power and money.
*Okay, yes, it's the U.K. but I'm sure the U.S. government would love to do the same thing.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Anybody familiar with Cameron's abysmal record, especially when it comes to countering terrorism, knows that Cameron is desperately trying to shift the blame away from his own incompetence.
There is some absurd shit coming out of the UK lately. This shouldn't surprise anyone given that just last week elements inside the UK started a *knife control* campaign.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/is-this-a-joke-british-police-push-for-ban-on-pointy-knives_112014
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/british-police-calling-for-knife-ban/
If you live there, you need to start acting NOW because it won't be nearly to fix it later on.
For many years I opened every staff meeting with the comment: "Email is equivalent to sky writing". Since cheap technology exists to intercept and decrypt most electronic communication It is foolish to assume otherwise. Vague appeals to privacy and freedom are irrelevant. However, this is hardly new -- in 1917 British intelligence intercepted and decoded the famous Zimmerman telegram. And Western civilization survived.
That sentence ought to end right there.
Liberty in your lifetime
If one man murders another in the street, is it terrorism? Presumably if Raoul Moat had been a Muslim, his killing spree would have been terrorism too.......
David Cameron is clearly harboring them.
I am hereby reporting thayt the Obama administration has been terrorizing the American people.
It's not my fault; you're the problem. Somebody must police all those trouble-makers. (Dictatorial surveillance and totalitarian police aren't working.)
The disgusting thing: This rhetoric arrives the same day as a report detailing how all those anti-terrorist laws curtailing human rights are super successful despite convicting only 1 in 5 terrorists found. The politicians declare the UK is facing more terrorism than any other time in history. Given the multiple bombings performed by the IRA, it's difficult to count the 4 bombings (2005//07/07) and the murder of one soldier as the most dangerous terrorism the UK has seen.
The UK government is host to US military forces at several locations. Cameron himself is providing a safe haven to terrorists.
is your own fart. David Cameron is who he calls others.... TERRORIST.
A New world order piece of shit to boot.
IF you don't want WW3 both OBAMA (the US version of this TERRORIST piece of shit) and CAMERON (the UN version - note not a nation) need to be arrested.
Fuck IMPEACHEMENT.. ARRESTED!!!
The US Military has the power to ARREST OBAMA
So the British agencies want a global change in the way internet services are offered on-line. Well Cameron, better start lobbying for the "total UN control" of the internet. Some of us are already waiting at the water dumping hole for the babies you throw away in the process. Our arms might not be enough to get them all.
Its a federal crime to wiretap or eavesdrop unless you are a national federal agency, or you have five eyes. "Oh, just snoop, and then call us..." and get arrested in the process, and have your business, your assets and your freedom taken from you. That's an option. Or we could not and keep the business and face the 20/20 hindsight of David Cameron: one time politician and now full time armchair quarterback. To get help from internet companies and internet users, you have to remove the laws that prevent them from being helpful. Sure they can volunteer information, and then get the grilling "How did you get this information?" "Are you a COP?!?" "Do you snoop on other people's regularly?" Lets do a raid on your house, turn everything upside down, seize all your property, seize all your companies property, and then tear everything apart. If we find something: jail. If we don't: "Oh sorry, we were thinking of the children". "Here's all your now broken stuff back."
Therefore I am protected from Mayhem. And I own a .357 Magnum to help protect me from murder. And hopefully in this country there is still some remnant of freedom of speech. So Fuck You Adam "David Cameron" Sutler.
Ok, now what is an "internet company"? Sounds like a "business"... terms so vague as to give no clue as to what they do. Someone needs to give that politician a lesson in technical English as he obviously couldn't catch a clue with a clue bat.
What "internet company" is he talking about that provides terrorists a safe haven; Amazon?
And ISP (Internet Service Provider) gives a last mile connection to the internet. They usually provide some additional perks like an email server, NNTP server, personal web space, or free firewall and antivirus software; yet what you are paying for is primarily a pipe to the net. An ISP doesn't monitor what goes through the pipe but how much you push through your pipes. If they are monitoring; they are data mining and selling the information as Comcast is infamous for.
As to the "safe haven for terrorists"... Who hosts the server where the safe haven is located?
Lee Rigby seems to espouse a logic that would prosecute the cashier at the gas station because you filled your vehicle then got into an accident that killed people.
Minor rant over the clueless... Just like that VP that invented the internet since he voted funding for the original DARPA project.
NRRPT/RCT