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.'"
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"B-b-but, it's against oppression!"
Well, if you say so.
Alternatively, that's what you'd say.
Plus Plus Ungood for putting ban controls on the 'open' web. If it's 'open' anyone can play. As soon as you ban something from 'open', it is by definition 'closed'.
Google exec says using Google services will help prevent terrorism.
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
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.
This is going to be applied to people who speak out against feminism, BLM, etc. They will make unpopular opinions disappear in the name of terrorism.
The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
All we have to do is check to see if the evil bit is set!
Maybe we can use these same techniques to force Top Googlers off the open web. It sure seems like, a lot of times, after they've opened their mouths it's apparent they would've been better served keeping them shut.
#DeleteChrome
then the criminals and finally the regular citizens who will lose their voice on the open web.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I'd much rather we continue to show people what these cavemen consider normal in graphic detail.
They're lunatics, hiding them won't help. We need to out this insanity, and it helps that they're doing a great job of demonstrating what religious fanaticism is capable of.
Censorship is evil. Period.
..don't panic
So you can track them.
Kicking Iran out of SWIFT was the worst decision - then they just traded oil for gold in an untraceable way.
What if we just spammed all known ISIS posts with dick pics, Goatse, tubgirl, etc.? Wouldn't that be simpler AND more effective?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
darkweb? like google+...
and i agree all narcissist glass-hole terrorist should be blocked from the "open-web"
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 honestly surprised it wasn't Eric Schmidt who said this. Seems like something he'd say before hopping into his driverless Lexus RX450h
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.
There are going to be some fireworks at Google's internal company-wide TGIF meeting tomorrow (yes, TGIF is on Thursday). Lots of Google employees are going to be really unhappy about this statement, and Larry's gonna get some really angry questions.
I'm going to make sure I get there early. With popcorn.
How about ending the proxy war instead?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Once a system like this is built, it will be turned on all sorts of "undesirables" - terrorists just happen to be the undesirable de jour.
If a country's people are so disaffected they would join nutbags like ISIS, the problem isn't ISIS the problem is the country.
Let's show the World what they are talking about and their attitudes. When they do anything show how stupid, ignorant and idiotic they and their followers and supporters are.
And not just them. Like when the poor kid chop off his own hand the other day because he wasn't "pious" enough.
Or even when some local forces Intelligent Design to be taught in our schools and when sued, exclaimed, "Don't call me stupid!"
Yes, all the above are stupid. I want the World to see the idiocy of these fundamental religious groups and people. They should be shamed and ridiculed by everyone in the World. Anyone who agrees with them should be treated the same.
Someone who goes to tries to go to those websites, should be intercepted with a page that shows the groups brutality, links to places that shows their ignorance and stupidity, and ridicule them.
This being respectful for other beliefs has to have a line.
And when people are afraid to say something critical about anyone for fear of violence, things must change. And it needs to be brought out into the open, examined and if anyone has a problem with it, tough shit.
The Prophet Mohamed was a dick, by the way. And Muslims, Scientologists and Mormons are all idiots for following "religions" founded by cruel scam artists.
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
you catch murderers and hitmen by
1.the police answering the ads of "hitmen" (morons, but so are most ISIS supporters)
2. police posing as hitmen and picking up the losers that contract for their services
you can do the same with ISIS
1. answer real ISIS broadcasters with fake supporters who proceed to sabotage operations and outreach in all sorts of ways
2. pose as ISIS and hoover up the social retards who answer the call
but you can only do this if the idiots operate out in the open
drive them underground and you can still do it, like with child porn douchebags. but you've made the job harder and some sympathizers go uncaught
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The government should give them a shit load of money to try and attempt something that can not be done.
After ISIS who is next ? Greenpeace, Amnesty International, how about any Palestinian organisation, how about Chinese dissidents, those that criticise Donald Trump, perhaps any newspaper that writes something those in power dont like.
I am thankful I minimise my "google", they have become a sick puppy.
In school, we teach kids how to protect themselves against drugs and stranger danger. We also teach them to look both ways before crossing the street; to stop, drop, and roll if they find themselves on fire; and to crawl under the desk in case of earthquake or nuclear detonation. Why not also teach them how to protect themselves against radical organizations? Then we would be protecting them with knowledge instead of ignorance.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Lock them up and throw away the key.
how is babby formed?
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
Wait... Don't Chatham House rules apply at Chatham House?
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
I think we already know how this is gonna end.
We've have countless fantasy stories where the evil antagonist was somehow confined to a crystal/underground jail cell/dimension/etc only to later escape and wreak havoc on the earth.
Think, man!
As it was, we had US Government spooks trying to silence people pushing for equality. Look at Mockingbird and COINTELPRO if you don't know or don't believe. Yes, people would be silenced. In fact I'll argue that a tremendous amount of silencing happens today. Censorship already happens all the time, because it benefits people in power to control the narrative. People should try to count how many clips of audio they hear everyday in the "News" which are intentionally taken out of context so that you have a certain viewpoint. Then add in how many issues are simply ignored because it harms a narrative. Hint: It is closer to 100% than 0% in terms of how much the dialogue is devised for people to have and hold a specific opinion.
To the point you raise: Google is not the arbiter of what should and should not be said any more than I am or you are. Words do not harm, and have never caused harm(1). I read lots of stupid shit that I don't agree with because it makes my opinion stronger. I also happen to read things I didn't know about in the process, which does the same or causes me to update my opinion.
(1) A call to action like "yelling Fire in a crowded theater" which implies "run for your life" is not "speech", it's a call to action. People often confuse the two and often for sophistry.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I hope you're trolling.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yo ISIS, come join Us in the future here at Blot're. All are welcome: http://blog.blot.re/we-are-the... We've got all the webs you'll ever need: #000000 web, #ffffff web, and even some #A74CAB web.
Yeah, apparently the ideals of ISIS are so appealing that the only way to stop them is to shut them up. Apparently Jared Cohen doesn't think there are any good arguments against ISIS propaganda? Is ISIS' bullshit really that well written and the arguments for our society's benefits that weak?
It's not an 'open web' if someone can be locked out.
It will work.
I'd like to have the idea extended to a full set of classifications for content so that I can sort and filter out all the other garbage on the web that is just as harmful to my kids.
So long as adults can find anything by controlling those sorting filters I see no problem with the idea, just don't tell me what I as an adult have a right to read or know.
The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.
Unfortunately the bad guy wrote "Don't read what the good guy wrote" and the angry youth will not read what the good guy wrote.
The question remains whether they will stop at terrorism, but to enforce the will of certain left-leaning interest groups.
Facebook already censors (yes, it's not just a government thing, Virginia!) in this way to enforce the leftist narrative in Germany.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
How unamerican of you.
*reloads shotgun*
You would think this would be freaking obvious. And who gets to decide what is evil enough to be banned from the Web? On what grounds is the determination made? This leads to something much worse than the actual danger ISIS poses. It leads to putting the power to stroke out sections of the global brain, to limit the connectivity of humanity and puts that power in the hands of a few. No thanks. This once again is letting terrorists win.
https://xkcd.com/936/
You clearly have no understanding of the effect of exclusion from society has on people. Even if the exclusion is largely largely your "own" fault because your religion is different or as we would say out of sync with the modern world.
Daesh is like any other cult - it finds the excluded and pissed off and gives them a feeling of belonging. That is all it takes to radicalize young people who have not found themselves.
The awful irony is that our western society with its abundant freedom of choice and opportunity to define your own life obviously completely fails to attract the misfits who go off to Syria and Iraq to be killed by drones. The 60 people with half the worlds wealth might ponder on why the societies they run have so little meaning to the people who live in them.
The number one task of Daesh is obviously to continue to recruit, hence the odd high profile slaughter in western countries to keep their meme alive in the media and the relentless social web presence.
The number one task of western military should be to kill their propaganda and cut off their supply of recruits.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
ISIS is, ultimately, an idea. Google's "head of ideas", Jared Cohen, can't come up with any counter ideas.
The solution: Suppress ideas.
What an idea!
Seastead this.
If ISIS or anyone/anything else is "removed" from the "Open Web" (i.e.no longer indexed by Google), then word would get out to use another search engine (easily found via Google) or the word will get out to go to a specific ISIS URL or to use a specific messaging app,etc. It might temporarily slow down access to their sites and they might reach a smaller number of potential recruits but a senior Google's excec to make this suggestion displays a staggering of stupidity.
Patriotism is a favorite device of persons in India with something to sell;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism