Slashdot Mirror
UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'
An anonymous reader points out comments from Mark Rowley, the UK's national police lead for counter-terrorism, who thinks tech companies aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from using their services. He said, "[The acceleration of technology] can be set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them ... and creates challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that." Rowley wouldn't name which companies in particular he's talking about, but he added, "Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement and intelligence agencies and the bad guys are better informed. We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
why not just ask him if he thinks security companies are a bad thing? are companies providing encryption for the police forces doing a bad thing? or should they just forget their data in cars that get stolen unencrypted?
how does he think he can eat the cake and then continue to have it? he can have part of the cake after eating but it's going to smell shitty, so why would anyone use the security companies giving him the cake first...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Does one really have to state the obvious? Snowden didn't "create" anything.
Companies don't find those entities untrustworthy because Snowden reported it, they find them untrustworthy because it turns out they are untrustworthy. If Snowden didn't report it they would've found it out eventually some other way.
> no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
He forgot to mention that an increasing number of tech companies is also friendly to child molesters, baby-eating cannibals, and people who drown kittens for fun.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Why is Snark Required?
I regard the threat to my privacy and civil liberty by criminals like Mark Rowley as much more significant than that posed by terrorists. Snowden didn't make companies add more encryption. Overreach by government agencies caused it. They're just trying to shoot the messenger but they created the problem by circumventing or ignoring the law.
Technology that is resistant to exploitation by terrorists is also resistant to exploitation by civil defense. The end result is a weakened national security because everything is based on 'edge security' rather than 'defense in-depth' strategies.
NATO has ammo dumps all over the EU to cope with an invasion, any tech that cannot be exploited would undermine this strategy. I would double-check who is pushing this agenda.
Haven't heard that one before...
It's called COINTELPRO, guys. Until you have death-penalty level safeguards in place for misuse/abuse of information gained through mass surveillance, you don't get to do it.
Not with our permission, anyway.
Typical Policeman wants other people to do all the work to prevent crime and wants rid of anything that can be possibly used for crime.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Saudi Arabia indiscriminately bombed Yemen for 3 weeks, untold number of civilians were killed
Saudi claims that the Houthis are the terrorists, but to the residents in Yemen who have their domiciles bombed and family members killed, the Saudis are the terrorists
Hamas launched their rockets into Israel, Israel retaliates with full scale massive military campaign --- Gaza Strip almost flattened as a result
While Hamas are terrorists (nobody can deny it) the Israelis are also not that 'non-terrorists' either
Now, let me ask you guys ... who supply the Israelis and the Saudis with the bombs?
So this guy in London is saying that ISP is 'terrorist friendly' --- but of course, many ISPs around the world are in very good terms with Uncle Sam, the supply of bombs to both Saudi Arabia and to Israel
A police chief that clearly stands for the police state, where public and private partnerships arbitrarily decide who is guilty and who is not and deny access to those them deem to be what ever they deem them to be for what ever reason they deem ie guilt upon accusation without proof. So how do you keep terrorists from attacking your customers without securing your services. How do you adhere to principles of a countries constitutions when you start ignoring them to convenience the police state.
So Mr Police Chief, why are convicted terrorists allowed full access to the internet because until you prove you case, they are not terrorists they are suspects. So the headline should be "Too many corporations allow secure access to the Internet for potential suspects of crime". As for suspect being less informed about police tactics, hey shit for brains Police chief, all of your tactics are by law required to be subject to public review and be taken into account at the next election as a measure of how well that government is handling the justice system. A citizen has a right to review all the actions of a government and then they get to choose whether they approve and vote for them again or whether they disapprove and vote for someone else.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
So how do you like your slippery slope? We never did bother defining what a "terrorist" actually is. Pretty soon it will include anyone who disagrees with official government policy.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Car manufacturers aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from driving cars. Oil companies aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from using diesel and petrol. Food companies aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from eating food. Pencil manufacturers aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from writing. Shoe manufacturers aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from walking. I could go on but I won't. He probably will. Snowden has made a few more people aware of the fact that many people who work in law enforcement agencies and intelligence services think they have a right to ignore the law. Particularly the law in other countries.
Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
How did terrorists communicate 50 years ago? Pen and paper? Morse code? The phone? You can shut down the internet and plunge everyone in to the 70's again, but it won't stop the terrorists. Where there is a will, there is a way. Allah said so....
...since they're not doing enough to prevent them from using their pickup trucks in their desert raids...
Why are fear mongerers still allowed to act as media voices? Obviously, the media ARE doing enough.
At some stage, you're probably going to want to address the "terrorists'" issues directly. There are apparently a lot of historic issues that need to be at least noted. We've already demonstrated that this disagreement can't be resolved by 'brute force'.
Until then, any of this "you're friendly-to terrorists" nonsense is inefficient and counter-productive. ..unless you have a vested interest in war.
So now "terrorism" basically means any kind of activity that might undermine the state's supremacy of power. Mark Rowley's candid admittance is perfectly in line with how, for instance, Missouri's police forces refer to protesters as "enemy forces". And of course, if you're not helping with enforcing this supremacy, actively betraying your own principles in the process (and, no Mr officer, saying 'Some days, I hate my job' while you break into an innocent's home and plunder their stuff, does not exonerate you in any way) then you are with THEM.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
We have terrorists as an external threat fighting against the freedom of speech and on the other hand we have our spy agencies and police forces as an internal threat fighting against the same bloody thing! They share the goal which kind of puts them in the same category. You know, the enemy of your enemy is your friend and all that.
I suspected that companies were selling private data BEYOND WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES to the spooks on the excuse of terrorism. Here HE IS CONFIRMING THAT!
""Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement and intelligence agencies"
They SHOULD only be working with law enforcement and intelligence agencies as far as the law compels them to do an no further, they are, the balance that pushes against the Stasi state! In effect he's confirming what we already suspected, that there is wholesale handing of customer private data to the spooks, and now they're reluctant to do so.
Look at this law making its way through the US:
http://boingboing.net/2015/04/21/us-congress-to-vote-on-cyber.html
It pretends to be a cyber-security bill, but is actually a legalization of sharing/selling any undefined "security data" with the NSA. It's a post-hoc legalization there, in 2005 they tapped the phones, and in 2007 passed a law to give immunity which made it impossible to prosecute even if it was a crime at the time. Now they're up to the same trick, provide "immunity" to companies sharing "cyber security data" (which is really anything you want it to be), which then makes anything they're already doing beyond prosecution.
Mark Rowley is the counter-terrorism head, so he must have been aware of NSA surveillance of Brits, yet he said nothing, he showed his true Stasi loyalty there, as he does with this scare tactic!
If companies spy on Brits and freely hand that to the spooks, police and NSA, then where does law and courts and judicial process come into play?
What is Facebook but a terrorism chat room?
Someone always drags it out in any discussion like this as if its some kind of killer quote that nullifies any further discussion.
Newsflash: People since the dawn of time have given away freedom for security except in one specific situation - which is known as anarchy. And trust me, giving people the freedom to so whatever they damn well please with no consequences is NOT a good thing.
And yes, my *security* is partly being protected from those of criminal intent and therefor I am happy with laws restricting criminal behaviour even though it also restricts my freedom.
To sum up: Franklin was full of it.
The sword of internet censorship cuts both ways. If you don't want to be censored yourself, then you shouldn't be censoring others. Are your ideologies so weak they cannot stand on their own merits? Are you so afraid of opposing views, that governments feel the need to censor terrorist publications on the internet? I'm no fan of terrorism, or ISIS or any extreme views, but personally, I think they have just as much right to spew their hatred of us as we have to spew our hatred of them. Keep the net freely accessible to all, even those you don't like.
Why would we think he would say anything else? That's his job, and presumably he's surrounded by plots and threats that he needs to counter every day, so his perspective is going to be a little biased.
The important thing is that whenever a policeman or agent says something like this, we respond by thinking "well obviously he would say that" and take a view on whether that is proportionate based on the wider civil liberties consequences. The fault is not that they would want that, everyone always wants more power to do their job more effectively, is that we have weak politicians that grant it too easily.
Most governs, also thes in united kingdom, are in favor of few people who has loads of money but have never actually worked ... if that is not terrorism, I do not have any idea what is.
Sometimes I feel like I am living in the long prequel novel which explains how the world in 1984 evolved.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Snowden did not create a hostile environment for governments and intelligence agencies. The actions of governments accomplished that entirely on their own.
Mr. Rowley make's his statement based on a 1950's mindset where "the government is your friend and can be trusted" was a common theme. Well, unfortunately, that illusion was dispelled many, many years ago after repeated episodes of government scandals, outright lies, and law breaking.
“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. -Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 1854.”
Governments and their intel organizations fucked away the public's trust long ago.
The remainder of Mr's Rowley's statement is yet another poke intended to plant an idea that the public should support laws against the civilian use of encryption for data and communications.
Don't let that 1984 supporter bullshit you.
Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement and intelligence agencies and the bad guys are better informed. We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
>"Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement and intelligence agencies" No it was the revealed conduct and overreach of the NSA which made everyone uncomfortable with guys like you.
Newspapers are friendly to terrorists, basic spycraft has been passing messages via advertisements forever. It uses advanced encryption that if done right can not be broken. Tagging buildings, the daily special at a diner, notes taped under park benches, etc etc have all been used to let people communicate in a clandestine manner should be ban all of those?
No sir I dont like it.
His comments on Snowden are part of a narrative: Everyone at that level of government HAS to accuse Snowden of causing irreparable harm, otherwise there wouldn't be a "united front" against a person who leaked their secrets.
Snowden is a straw man.
The fact is that Snowden did everyone a favour: He opened up a real debate on what was being done and how it was being done. By taking the covers off so we can see what is being done to our privacy, people can now see what is being done and why.
That means that us "proles" can finally understand what is NEEDED to overcome terrorism and let it happen, instead of just living in an "ignorance is bliss" situation where everyone goes around thinking everything is just peachy.
Meanwhile the "authorities" can actually state the truth and that protects them from accusations of secrecy. They will have to work harder to justify their intrusion, but now we know why it's needed and we can accept it. So ultimately, less secrecy leads to better support and more respect for the authorities.
And finally "companies" that deal in and with technology don't need to keep as many secrets any more, so they are not under as great a risk of exposure. And any "back doors" they build into products so the NSA can read the data must be built properly so that there's some protection against the villains using the same tech to do nasty things. (Whether or not they *can* do it properly, I leave to history.)
Give the US data about US citizens, and maybe a few guys will get arrested. Give the egyptians some twitter feeds and they will dump 1000 people in jail. Give the Ukrainians some feeds with journalist data, and the journalists will end up with their throats cut.
It is interesting how this police chief clearly thinks that Snowden is to blame. Government hackers fully penetrated the networks of several major tech companies without their consent for the explicit purpose of spying on their users, and now it is Snowden's "fault" that these tech companies do not trust those same "law enforcement" agencies.
His predecessor, is now in the house of Lords, Lord Blair (form head of police anti-terror MET) tried to add a legalization for mass surveillance as an amendment to a bill, slipping it in at the last minute. The Lords rejected it demanding a debate on surveillance instead:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31096177
It's noticeable, that people connected to the illegal (but largely still secret and as such untested in law) bulk surveillance programs, are trying all sorts of ways to push this through. Scaremongering, last minute amendments, calling it 'cyber-security' data, or other mislabeling. Rather than permit a debate by Parliament and public.
I don't think he wants to do his job "more effectively" so much as to not end up the scapegoat when all this shit starts hitting the fan.
How many laws have been broken in how many jurisdictions by companies like Vodafone to fill a surveillance database in the UK, as part of the Mastering the Internet program, where the law part, aka 'Snoopers charter" WAS NEVER PASSED INTO LAW.
Ass covering mode at work. IMHO.
So by this logic, the auto makers "aren't doing enough" and are "friendly" to terrorists if someone uses a car for a suicide bombing.
Front door locks restrict movement. Police, firefighters and ambulance techs must stop and deal with a locked front door in an emergency. This wastes precious time. Therefore all front door locks should be removed. This follows from the same sort of logic this supposed expert used.
I say supposed expert because he obviously has no business being in that job. He's admitting he's bad at it and blaming any past, current or potential failures on other people and organizations. If he had the slightest understanding of security he would have at least some sense of how incredibly irresponsible his attempt at blaming and shaming really is.
Part of the reason he won't name names? They'd have their own staff experts hammer him for his incompetence.
Please find below what he actualy said:
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
(Man, this is more insightfull and scary than funny. Especially that last bit.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
is Pakistan, who got their "get out of jail free" card for selling nuclear tools technologies, and weapons parts to every third rate dictatorship in the globe, and still does, shielded by the US for providing moral support and landing strips for the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
If we'd wanted to stop nuclear development for terrorists, we should have raided Pakistan, not Iraq. But ooooh, wait!!!! Iraq is sitting on 20% of the world's oil supply!!!! Tasty....
Some government institutions are unfriendly to citizens.
Almost everyone lives in a home or an apartment. And you know what? The police can't monitor the conversations that happen inside those walls without a warrant! Terrorists take advantage of this cover ALL THE TIME! Something must be done. We must allow the police to have unfettered access to our homes, because terrorists.
This quote is straight out of dystopian cinema. He is quite clearly saying, "Either you're actively helping enforce the surveillance state or you are our enemy." Chilling.
weapons and explosives manufacturers?
What's being done by those companies to stop terrorists from misusing their products?
I don't screen my customers againt watch-lists and I don't refuse to sell to customers who wear t-shirts spoiting hate or anti-patriotic messages.
I guess this makes me a technology vendor who is friendly to people who might be terrorists.
--
The above is hypothetical - or is it? I'm not and office-supply vendor but most office-suppu vendors could've written what is avove and be telling the truth.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What a mendacious douchebag. Fucking statists.
Linked article is from 2013
The UK has had total access to all communications networks in the UK since WW1.
Defence of the Realm Act 1914 gave vast new powers. HOW (Home Office Warrant) like use was expanded into the 1950's and beyond.
The UK had total mastery of all emerging telco sat systems in the 1960's, CSO Morwenstow/GCHQ Bude.
Irelands telco networks (domestic and all connections in and out) where all well understood.
As internet use, desktop crypto and mobile phone use became more common the UK had a few ideas about how to help with the creation of Government Technical Assistance Centre, later the NTAC (National Technical Assistance Centre).
All mobiles sold in the UK by default have been ready for intercept by design as set out in standards and international standards.
The use of early 1990's voice print technology and a new generation of cell site simulators have allowed the total collection of mobile calls all over UK cities for years.
Consumer grade computers with tame OS, weak default junk consumer grade crypto and expert malware have allowed any domestic computer system to be accessed by default over many years.
Networking anonymity is not an issues for the UK. The only real issues the UK has ever had with communications has been the Soviet Unions correct use of one time pads and number stations since the 1950's.
The SIGMOD initiative (sigint modernisation programme) has ensured the UK will never be without a total understanding of any type network in/out of the UK.
In the past years social media has been as open to courts as ever. OS developers ship the same standard of basic consumer grade protections with their desktop computers and seem as happy as ever to offer voice, keylogging, plain text and other access when requested by a UK court.
Mobile devices have always been and always will be open to any court request for all data, voice, location, images or telco network support to track, log.
Privacy is a useless concept when a UK court demands access in the UK on a UK network or any device sold, used or connected in the UK.
Any fancy imported crypto app layer is reduced to junk with keystrokes or voice been recorded by malware at a hardware or tame lower software/network/OS level.
The same level of access to text and calls will always exist on public/private networks thanks to international standards and all devices sold been intercept ready by design.
OS, networks, social media, telcos will never be a problem in real time for the UK.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I am fairly sure that the UK (and US, for that matter) government do not consider most of the non-IS rebels in Syria to be terrorists but as Freedom Fighters, although Bashar al-Assad (Syrian President) definitely does label them as terrorists.
As this is basically a different point of view, it is totally assinine of Mark Rowley and shows a complete lack of awareness about what technology is capable of.
Granted, Youtube, Twitter, et. al., can block or delete content and accounts that display objectionable material, but the major problems there are who decides what content is objectionable (these companies do not want to get into the censorship game - unless it is profitable, which it would not be), and the sheer volume of content being produced makes active management impossible.
The irony for me is that the US government (via DARPA) developed technology such as TOR, to help activists and freedom fighters stay anonymous on the internet, and now the people in power are surprised that such tools are not only used by people who believe in the same underying values.
Similarly, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are great for building communities around lolcat pictures, but how dare anyone who does not share my philosophy and world view use these tools!?!?
Can the same logic be used for law enforcement agencies? Didn't NSA/FBI/CIA/etc know about some of the terrorists from 9/11? They didn't do anything and no one was held responsible. They have plenty of tools available and can't use them correctly.
I see terrorists usually carrying AK-47s. Maybe we should ban those.
No, dickweed, YOU created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement by abusing your privileges.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Taking liberties and freedoms from law abiding citizens doesn't make us all safer, instead it makes us slaves.
Some grocery stores are friendly to terrorists. These institutions are BLITHELY keeping these monsters alive, with no regard for the horrible acts they commit on a full stomach, or with what appears to be a full stomach. If not for these bastions of sin, we could weed out all of these evildoers without firing a single bullet, but for some reason, these nourishment dealers continue to peddle their wares to anyone who will show them a little green.
It's time we stand up and say ENOUGH! Think of the children, and God Bless the Greatest United Great States of Excellent America, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, light on a hill, best. country. evar. Amen.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
"terrorism" is a political agenda. The pot calls the kettle black. If an agreement is reached, and not done by force, then the agreement is voluntary. What a government may consider a "terrorist" is considered a customer by another.
Terrorists are using government provided roads to kill thousands, government provided passports to cross borders, and usually arrive at government-subsidized airports and are guided safely by government-run air traffic control! Why does the government love terrorism so much?
Nike isn't doing much either. When will it stop terrorists from using their shoes?
Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly to USERS Privacy'
Funny how if you prevent the government from doing something it is automatically a threat for terrorism.
That's what happens when you start treating the entire population like terrorists.
Snowden was the canary in the coalmine. He's not the only one who recognized that governments are abusing their power; he's just the poster boy.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Rephrasing that and removing the "mealy-mouth" what he is saying is "Tech companies who don't actively support the expansion of the police state by any means necessary are friendly to terrorists." This is a patently ridiculous statement for which he would be burned in effigy if he stated it openly ... which is why he couches it in vagueness.
Lanterns and flashlights too.Sew up their lips and tie up their fingers while we're at it.
Everything that a terrorist could communicate with should be regulated, shut down or backdoored.
It's the only way to keep safe.
Is George Washington a terrorist too?
I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
When desires of government bureaucrats is "front and center" of thinking for a company making consumer products, then the company isn't working for it's customers any more. This is a system that has been tried before (and currently, in some places). In the 1930's and 40's it was called Fascism.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Snowden didn't create any environment, the NSA did.
Each time some government official says something like this I double the strength of the next keypair I need.
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
It's a lot harder to change your face in the offline world than online. Offline, you'd need plastic surgery to disguise your face. Online, you are who you say you are -- your computer doesn't know if you're male, female, young, old, criminal, police or anything else.
The UK police think tech companies are slacking because they have failed to produce a 'detect terrorists now' app? It's far easier to do such a thing in the offline world, and yet UK police have failed to stop terrorists from traveling upon the nation's road networks. So why are UK police falling down on the job?
Until their backs are turned. Then it's stabbin' time!
It's not the publics job to root out terrorists, that's the job of the government.
If they can't do it then that's just hard luck on their part, maybe they should work a bit harder / change their methods, etc.