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
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'.
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
But if we build in censorship as a fundamental part of the web to stop ISIS, that doesn't sound so bad. What's the worst that could happen? I'll bet the politicians are even willing to swear that they'll never abuse it.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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
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.
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.
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
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.