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!
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.
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.
He never actually said that. The "liberty" was "essential liberties," and the security was "a little, temporary safety." Which completely changes the meaning of the sentence from don't-think-authority-BAD to a desire for critical thinking and balance between the needs of everyone as a whole (ie: the government in a democracy) and the needs of the individual.
Which makes sense if you look at what he actually did. Prior to the US Constitution there was no actual Federal government, there was a late-18th-century version of the UN Security Council called Congress. In theory it was supreme in many matters, but without it's own bureaucracy/Army/etc. it had trouble doing things like convincing Connecticut to give up it's claim to Chicago. This anti-freedom monster everyone worries about (the Federal government) was actually created by him at the Constitutional Convention. The Articles of Confederation government was unable to provide any "safety" from being reconquered by the Brits, largely because it couldn't directly affect anyone's individual liberty. It could not even tax you directly, it had to convince your state to do that, and then turn over the money to Congress.
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
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
You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...
they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy..
And for social justice and benefactors for the poor and unwanted. Reality is a complicated thing which those having most power wish to reform to their liking to preserve and justify their viewpoint, however criminal or malicious that might be.
Simplest reason that Israelis are not terrorists is intent. Israeli people do not try to blow up everything, they only attempt to target buildings, locations, etc that are a threat to them directly or indirectly such as communication centers, missile launch centers, barracks, etc. Hamas launches thousands of unguided missiles into Israel for the explicit purpose of terrorizing citizens as well as government officials and hoping to harm anyone on the receiving end. Israeli citizens should also be separated from the Israeli government just like Palestinians should not all be considered Hamas. Not everyone agrees with all the actions of everyone else. This applies to both sides.
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
How did the US retaliate when Al Qaeda attacked them? How many Afghans were killed in that campaign, and how long did it last?
How did the US retaliate when Iraq attacked them? How many Iraqis were killed in that campaign, and how long did it last? For that matter, exactly _when_ did Iraq attack the US?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
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."
Like UN schools being used as refugee camps, eh?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...
Just like the brave, glorious Afghan mujahedeen that where fighting for their freedom against the vile Russian invaders. Everyone knows the rest.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
You're deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the text of 1441. 1441 required that Iraq comply with weapons inspections. Those inspections took place and no WMDs were found, up to the point that the US decided to say "fuck it" to the UN and go to war. The US was the one who championed going to war with Iraq, not the UN, and the UN rejected the use of force against Iraq.
While I suspect we agree on the principles here, let me just call out that quote by Franklin as one of those thoughtless crap statements that's far too often repeated. (Like "correlation doesn't prove causation" as another example.)
We trade "freedom" for "security" every day; it's called civilization, and it's what separates the ego-driven society of barbarians from the rule of law of townsmen. The fact that our civilization is so successful suggests that it is overall a worthwhile choice.
-Styopa
No. The UK started it with the Balfour Declaration, then the Zionist Organization followed by with an invasion. Arabs started to resist the invasion, and the cycle began, with many sins since then by many players. But the origin was British colonialism and Jewish millenarianism. And the recent and ongoing brutality has been primarily of Israeli origin.
There is nothing "cowardly" about hiding. That's how you win a battle. It's why we invented camouflage. That's the same charge the British leveled against American colonial fighters, that they wouldn't stand out in the open wearing bright colors and be shot like Real Men.
And the Palestinians have been on the defensive since 1917, that's the historical fact.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Israel is just as bas as the rest of the Middle Eastern countries. They take land away from Palestine and then claim all is fine, and since they receive protection and support from the USA (because Jews control US media) they are fine. But Palestinians fight to defend their lands and they get called terrorists and face Israeli bombs. Such hypocrisy.
And I'm not defending Palestine either. All I'm saying is that Israel is just as bad as the others, but gets away with it because of the Jewish lobby in America. In fact, the whole middle east is fucked up, fighting over primitive religions. If we dropped a couple nukes on the region and wiped them all out the world would be a better place.
I'm not gonna defend that shit, but who was the one who took the ancestral land of a people, forcibly evicted them, and forces them to live in poverty in what is basically a huge open-air prison camp? It's not Hamas. Don't act as if Israel didn't start this shit, they did.
Then you'd best learn some history. After all, the ones who didn't run and stayed in Israel are citizens to this day. Mainly Druze, the ones who ran when the arab countries said "we're going to kill every jew there, and you'll get the land afterwards" are the ones that are living in your 'open-air' camps that have a standard of living beyond what most do in the other arab countries.
So, you're saying that no one was forced off of their land and everyone there could have stayed there and just had the state of Israel created around them? Were these people consulted about having a new nation created where they currently lived?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
No, they're not terrorists. Retaliating against murderous ideologues, and removing their ability to kill, is not terrorism. Maybe you'll learn that someday.
You understand that that's the way Hamas views Israel, right? I'm just saying, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Officer Rowley, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by systems with strong crypto. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Gen. Alexander? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for a lost election and you curse the geeks. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that your career'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 server. You need me on that server.
We use words like security, code, privacy... 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 conducts his investigations under the blanket of the very data my users provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just got a warrant and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard and write some code. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.