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

Talk about blaming the messenger

[Chatsubo]

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.

Re:Talk about blaming the messenger

[khasim]

He's part of the "system". Therefore, his view is that anyone who isn't directly supporting the "system" is opposing it. Which means you're opposing him and the "good" work that he is doing. You are friendly to the "terrorists".

"Terrorists" in this case being defined as anyone Mark Rowley does not agree with.

Personally, I think that there are far more corrupt cops and corrupt politicians and so on who would abuse their authority than there are terrorists who can attack us.

F Mark Rowley

[putaro]

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.

Re:Benjamin Franklin got it right

[NicBenjamin]

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.

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'

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq didn't attack the USA. The USA used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. After (some of) the people caught on, they used WMDs as an excuse. After some more people caught on, they switched to using "spreading democracy" as an excuse. Of course, the real reason had to do with oil and getting Halliburton rich, but most of the public still believes the democracy ruse.

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.

Re:Define 'Terrorists'

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Define 'Terrorists'

[Mr. Slippery]

Israel didn't start it, Hamas did.

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.

Who are the terrorists? The ones launching cowardly, hidden attacks, or the ones defending themselves?

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.

Not just the tech industry either

[Floyd-ATC]

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.

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!