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.
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.
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
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.
I too should be able to pay a one days profit (yes that's what banks that helped terrorists and terrorist countries had to do) for crimes I commit. What's $30-$100 or so everytime I commit major fraud or help terrorists?
Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, history is full of slippery slopes where the government wants the power to do something, and then abuses it for other purposes as well. People who point this out are typically shouted down for supposedly using a "slippery slope" argument by those who are ignorant of history. There is absolutely no question that the government will continue expanding its power and using it in ways no one could ever dream of if we don't put a stop to it.
In fact, the slippery slope is already happening. First it was "for the children," now it's "to stop the terrorists." You'd have to be completely blind not to see it.
Don't let them take away your rights. Freedom is more important than any safety they can offer you.
Yes, the rhetoric for this week's episode of "Theresa May had an idea" has been particularly silly.
The statistics trotted out over the past week or so make for interesting, if depressing, reading.
For example, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, a very senior officer with counter-terrorism responsibilities, says they've been prevented on average one terrorist attack per year but so far this year it's been 4-5 already. (It's not clear whether this was in the specific context of "lone wolf" attacks, though.)
Just hours apart from that, we have Theresa May herself saying that almost 40 major terrorist attacks have been foiled since the 7/7 bombings, giving an average of about four per year. This means, she says, that the UK is facing the biggest terrorism threat in its history, which might be surprising to anyone who was around during the worst of the troubles with the IRA not so long ago. There are plenty of scary messages played over the PA system when you go through any major London railway station these days, but not frequent closures due to actual bomb threats and the like.
Also on Monday, there was a statement from Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley citing 271 arrests resulting from counter-terrorism investigations so far this year. Their Commissioner seemed to be implying in the above statement that all of these had led to charges, too. What they don't seem to have mentioned anywhere in this week's PR campaign is how many such arrests ultimately lead to convictions, nor how many of those convictions (or the arrests or charges themselves) are actually for terrorism offences.
The combined budget for our security services reportedly remains somewhere around the £2B mark, not counting additional funding for counter-terrorism units within other organisations such as the police.
In other news, in 2013 (the last full year for which stats are available) there were 1,713 people killed on our roads, and a further 21,657 seriously injured, not to mention damage to the economy estimated in the £15-30B range as a result of the disruption due to incidents on the road. Would anyone like to guess what's been happening to the annual road safety publicity budget in recent years?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Everything that is not a fallacy is not automatically correct.
No, but I didn't say that, either. I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
But given the situation, calling this incorrect is complete nonsense. The slippery slope is here, and Cameron the authoritarian is pushing us down it ("saving the children"->"stopping terrorists").
That sentence ought to end right there.
Liberty in your lifetime