Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven

Posted by timothy on from the not-quite-on-the-money dept.

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.

13 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Also ban cars by korbulon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because of all the horrific deaths that have occurred just today.

    Oh, and think of the children.

    1. Re:Also ban cars by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Also ban cars by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.'"
    3. Re:Also ban cars by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Also ban cars by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  2. Keys to the kingdom ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism

    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.
    1. Re:Keys to the kingdom ... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Today:
      "There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combating terrorism"

      Tomorrow:
      "There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over terrorism but not over combating organized crime"

      [etc]

      Soon enough:
      "There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over petty theft but not over combating traffic violations"

    2. Re:Keys to the kingdom ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eventually:

      "There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over traffic violations, but not over locating individuals who criticize the government".

      The scope creep of these things is the biggest problem.

      Many terrorism related provisions were implemented, and at the time we were told "oh, don't worry, we won't abuse this, this is purely for terrorism".

      And now look at where we are. Parallel construction anybody? You know, where the police have a manual of perjury and how to violate your legal rights by pretending they found you through other means, and then actively conspire to conceal the truth from the legal system.

      These things will always get abused over time. So the only real way to stop that is not allow them in the first place.

      Joesph McCarthy would have loved all of this stuff.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Keys to the kingdom ... by Jahta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. And this is why... by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:And this is why... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  4. Total Packet Inspection by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Good work there, boys. by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.