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.
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.
Sure they care. They care a lot. They just don't care in the way that you care. They care about whether their efforts to maintain the status quo succeed. That's it. But undermining the law is very much part and parcel of that maintenance. The people running our countries are career criminals and if the law were to catch up with them, they would be in trouble. They must continually erode the law, or they will be labeled as what they are. Thieves, crooks, con artists, frauds.
This article tells you all you need you know about the establishment's reaction. From TFA:
"The report also reveals that the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."
But the report then concludes that MI5 (and the other security services) are blameless and it's all the fault of some Internet company. Simultaneously whitewashing the security services failure and justifying (in their minds) further cranking up of mass surveillance.
Slippery slopesters you two.
Actually, it's the argument from exaggeration, I think there's a better name for it, but I haven't formally studied logical fallacies. I didn't formally study to learn to read, either. Instead, I read stuff. I can't diagram a sentence for you, because I don't care and because we spent maybe one day on that in my entire school career, IIRC, with no homework. I can tell you when a sentence is broken, and usually suggest multiple ways to fix it. And I can tell you when logic is broken, and suggest that someone fuck off :)
The point of making the extreme example (a form of hyperbole) is to illustrate a point — where do you stop sliding down the slippery slope? Because history tells us that mission scope tends to creep, and that like any organization law enforcement agencies tend to acquire power when possible and give it up only at gunpoint. Oh, sorry, that was more hyperbole. I imagine you're crying into your Kix now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Safety and security ARE more important than "freedom".
Simply incorrect. If you believe that way, then move to North Korea.
I, however, want privacy, free speech, and other fundamental rights. I recognize that a life without these things is not a life worth living.
I prefer the "freedom" from poverty and the "freedom" not to be shot or blown up over the "freedom" to google for explosive recipes or extremist ideologies, thank you very much.
You seem to be completely and utterly ignorant of history. That is, ignorant of the millions of abuses of government power throughout history. The US's surveillance is already being used for parallel construction and spying on love interests. Police routinely abuse innocent people. But I'm sure that the government is full of perfect beings who can do no wrong and can make no mistakes. Not only that, but you can trust every future person in the government to be this way. The sheer amount of stupidity it takes to think this way is simply astounding, so I must congratulate you and your worthless ilk.
The governments in free countries are supposed to be on the side of the people. When your government abuses you, that is much worse than if some random criminal abuses you.
And I see that you want to enact censorship. How very principled of you. I'm sure you'll continue believing that right up until the moment the government thugs you think are so perfect censor speech that you like. When you're someone who mindlessly goes along with the status quo, you don't need to worry about anything. Freedom is speech is mainly to protect speech that people do not like, otherwise there would be no point.
And since the majority of sane people think likewise, you will have to learn seeing things our way. :)
Bandwagon fallacy.
I'll take my chances. I'd much rather live and take risks than live in a police state. North Korea already has what you want, so I suggest moving there.
learn how to argue valid points
Given that Cameron is arguing that we should take another step down the slope, your claim that their claim of a slippery slope is invalid is invalid.
Here's why it's a fallacy.
Cameron is just trying to detract from his growing unpopularity with statements like this. Tony Abbott in Australia did the same thing, a huge police operation across 3 cities arresting 17 people made big headlines on the same day he released very unpopular policies... Obvious the policies were buried under the HUGE ANTI-TERROR ARRESTS on the front page.
Of the 17 people arrested in these raids, 16 were released without charge, the remaining person had a fine for a weapons misdemeanour (unsecured ammunition).
So people thinking this is a huge slippery slope are reading too far into it, it's just a politician trying some hand waiving to distract from growing voter dissatisfaction.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.