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.
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
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 ?
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.
Keep the net freely accessible to all, even those you don't like.
Especially those you don't like. Those you do like need no protection from you.
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."
The only problem is: they are already doing it. Without "our permission". And nobody is doing anything concrete to stop them. And it's possible that there *isn't* anything concrete that can be done to stop them on their tracks (although we can diminish their momentum with the judicious applying of cryptography and security conscience)...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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.
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.
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.