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."

Comments

Define 'Terrorists'

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Define 'Terrorists'

[stealth_finger]

As for Afghanistan, we didn't really do anything to them. Sure, we got Bin Laden, but by that time he was almost dead anyway and that was just for political posturing by Obama, not to stop any real threat.

Did you miss the whole war in Afghanistan? Quite a bit happened before the seals choppered into a complex then shot him and dumped his body in the ocean. Is anyone even sure that happened, if it did I doubt it did the way they say it did..

Re:Define 'Terrorists'

[Jason Levine]

Israel did what they could to minimize civilian casualties. I said minimize, because it is impossible to totally avoid them, given what Hamas was doing.

And just to elaborate unless someone skips over this important point:

When Hamas fires a missile at Israel, there is no warning and it hits civilian areas indiscriminately (there is no real set target).

When Israel fires a missile at Hamas, they are targeting a specific military target, albeit one that has been stuck in a school or hospital. Knowing this latter point, Israel actually warns the Palestinian people of the attack. They will say "clear out of X because we're firing a missile there in Y hours." This is done to minimize civilian casualties. Unfortunately, Hamas has been known to either prevent their citizens from leaving to have more bodies to show to the media. (I've heard reports that they even bring in other bodies to make it seem as though even more people were killed there, but I don't have any corroborating evidence at the moment.)

Re: Define 'Terrorists'

[tnk1]

The Halliburton reasoning is as tired as the WMD reasoning. The real reason we went into Iraq is because sanctions were failing, countries were wanting to pull out of them after a decade of them failing to cause Saddam to be overthrown, and we wanted to take a mulligan and try again.

The reason we went into Iraq is that our government regretted leaving Saddam Hussein in power and were determined to correct the mistake. 9/11 provided the best possible cover for that. Contrary to popular opinion, politicians aren't exactly the same as marionettes that dance on the strings of corporations. There is definitely conflict of interest, but the politicians had a very specific idea of how they think the world needs to look. That is why they got into politics to begin with. The ability to exercise power by politicians who were hoping to change the world is why we went into Iraq, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. That's worth more to a politician than a billion dollars in campaign funds, because they only take the billion so that they get the chance to do things like start wars or make a name for themselves as peace brokers.

They thought that they could overthrow Saddam and realign the Middle East more firmly in the US camp by dint of freeing the population, who would be duly grateful. The miscalculation was that even if such a thing was possible in 1991, it wasn't going to happen in 2003. Sadly, I think the problem with the war and its outcome was that it was insufficiently cold-blooded in approach. We didn't do the math, and we clearly didn't understand the facts on the ground. It has every hallmark of the use of a professional military to create a situation that was completely bungled in the hands of the politicians it was handed off to. As a conspiracy, it was a poor one. As some politician's wish fulfillment, it makes perfect sense.

Re: anon

[monkeyzoo]

...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....

And I'm saying we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by tyrannical mass-surveillance states that use the justification of "terrorism" to develop their ability to oppress their populations. I'm saying that needs to be front and center!