Slashdot Mirror
Google Exec Says Isis Must Be Locked Out of the Open Web (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this story about Director of Google Ideas Jared Cohen and his talk with the Royal Institute of International Affairs about stopping terrorists online. Cohen contends that the best way to fight them online is to keep them confined to the dark web. The Guardian reports: "Google's head of ideas, tasked with building tools to fight oppression, has said that to stop Isis being able to publicize itself on the internet requires forcing Isis from the open web. During a talk with the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, Jared Cohen said that it will not be possible to stop terrorists such as Isis from using Tor and the dark web. The key to stopping the terrorist group from propagating online is therefore to hound them from the traditional web – that which can be indexed by search engines. Cohen said: 'What is new is that they're operating without being pushed back in the same internet we all enjoy. So success looks like Isis being contained to the dark web.'"
So now all a "Blackhat SEO" company has to do is spam ISIS content all over competitor websites to delist them from Google.
Google has an obligation to shareholders to be an impartial/unpoliticized search engine. The second they start playing nanny state with their customer's searches is the second the advertising gravy train stops and they have to learn how to make a profit the old fashioned way. DuckDuckGo already has "scroogled". This asshatery sounds like a great way to further shitify a good product(result relevance has already been negatively impacted by attempts to combat clickfraud/blackhat SEO).
China exec says Google must be locked out of the Great Firewall.
So, what Google, the company that is 'informs me' with every other click about more 'great products and services' is saying, is that I am too dumb to interpret information myself, to stupid to know the difference between right and wrong and to gullible to even be confronted with this information. It should be kept far from me.
And that company thinks it is responsible behavior to expose such an incompetent person to a continuous barrage of advertisements, which will entice this person to waste all his money on unneeded goods, thus pushing this mentally weak person into bankruptcy
I think Google needs different idea-man.
I'm always confused at public statements made that require the speaker to double-back on themselves.
In Cohen’s opinion, Isis is “not a tech savvy organisation”, resorting to tactics commonly associated with fraud or spam, but it should not be underestimated.
I realize this is slightly semantic-nitpicking, but I see this a lot with statements from the US government and from US based companies about any online threat/problem. They walk this fine line between acknowledging and convincing people that the threat is big enough to require attention (which the Government/the companies are always able to handle), but simultaneously try to downplay the severity of the threat. Here we have ISIS using social media as a terrorism tool, with members (or at least fans) using fairly new software, services, and technology to spread their message to a world-wide audience, yet Google's spokesperson is very careful to play up the idea that ISIS is not tech-savvy. I'm not sure what to make of this, because it certainly seems like ISIS has a better handle on technology that the majority of the average US citizen. Heck, most ISIS productions and their use of modern software/services is far better than a good number of US businesses, old and new alike. Again, I'll grant maybe Cohen has a different idea in mind when saying tech savvy, but for as crooked as the organization is, I wouldn't suggest that they don't know what they're doing when it comes to Tech.
This just creates a really weird narrative juxtaposition in my head where it feels like the speakers are trying to create a "safe threat" for the audience. By that I mean it's a threat, but it's not really, because the mighty, powerful, and benevolent organization is here to protect the audience. It feels extremely manipulative as it tries to vilify and glorify in the same sentence, like a weird form of jingoism. It scares the audience just enough to think of how dangerous everything else, and the intended result seems to be an attempt to create a dependence on the organization. The lack of actual technical details, or even specific examples of what the org is doing to help or how it's controlling the attacker are almost always omitted in favor of vague platitudes.
I've seen this with quotes about cyberattacks attributed to Russians and Chinese as well, and its always the same foci: "it's dangerous! but we have it under control! but we had to take extreme measures! but it was never a problem! but it's a major threat! that we have under control!"
I get that the interested parties don't want to appear weak, but the lack of any substantial information always just strikes me with that weird sense that we're getting a story, not information or news. I realize that this is a very long post to say that governments/corporations are selfish and manipulative, but it's just really off putting for me.
We should call them Daesh. Out of respect for the millions of girls name Isis. And because they hate it to be called Daesh.
no, I don't have a sig
No first amendment issues, but plenty of personal liberty issues.
Sure, with this particular group most of the internet/world is willing to say they are evil and silencing them is good. But is that the test we want controlling who gets to voice their views on the internet? Would the suffrage movement or the civil rights movement have been silenced at the time? Bet yer ass. It's not googles place to determine what staff SHOULD be found on the internet, just what CAN be found. Policing content is not their job. They're a search engine, not a morals enforcement group.
This doesn't apply for some companies. My only source for wired, high-speed Internet is Time Warner Cable. Suppose they decided that Slashdot was an extremist group (based on reading the titles and spotting the string "ISIS" in a few articles) and banned access to the website. I wouldn't have the ability to vote with my wallet by going elsewhere. In fact, they could raise my rates due to "increased costs due to website filtering" and I'd actually be forced to pay more for worse service.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.