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.
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
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.
What is Facebook but a terrorism chat room?
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.
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.
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.
Someone always drags [the Franklin quote] out in any discussion like this as if its some kind of killer quote that nullifies any further discussion.
And someone always moderates it up, as if it's new and interesting and not at all cliche.
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.
Some government institutions are unfriendly to citizens.
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.
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
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?
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.
Just because it was insightful in one discussion doesn't stop it being insightful in another. Perhaps if people had learnt from it already there wouldn't be any need to keep bringing up the same issues with throwing away liberty under the pretence of increasing safety.
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.
unfortunately in this case it's not ... it's straight out of the mouth of someone who commands jack-booted thugs in the real world .... if you call Airstrip One the "real world"
Non-aggression principal. Voluntarism. Private-property. Look it up sometime and educate yourself.
Define "aggression". If I use my purchasing power to undercut your profit margin, am I acting aggressively? If I am competing with you in business and corner the market on a required resource, am I acting aggressively? If I buy up all the water rights in a particular area, am I acting aggressively? If I use low-quality materials and don't tell anyone, am I acting aggressively?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
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.
Until their backs are turned. Then it's stabbin' time!