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."
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)
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.
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
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
...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!