Slashdot Mirror
Britain Wants Tech Firms to Tackle Extremism (fortune.com)
Britain will tell Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft on Thursday to do more to stop extremists posting content on their platforms and using encrypted messaging services to plan attacks. From a report: Home Secretary Amber Rudd said on Sunday tech companies should stop offering a "secret place for terrorists to communicate," after British parliament attacker Khalid Masood was widely reported to have sent encrypted messages moments before he killed four people last week. Rudd has summoned the Internet companies to a meeting to urge them to do more to block extremist content from platforms like Facebook and Google's YouTube, but a government spokesman said encryption was also on the agenda. "The message is the government thinks there is more they can do in relation to taking down extremist and hate material and that is what they are going to be talking about this afternoon," the prime minister's spokesman said on Thursday.
Doesn't work by blocking their SM accounts.
Crypto is the only real privacy. You can see where someone truly stands on totalitarianism vs liberty by their attitude towards crypto.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Amber Rudd: We need you to do more to combat extremists. How about you use some of those tools from CSI? And also give us back doors into your services.
Google: Sure, no problem
Facebook: OK
Twitter: What ever you say
MS: Why not
outside the meeting
Google: So you guys going to do anything?
MS: haha, fuck that.
Twitter: Yeh. Stupid cow, what the fuck was she talking about?
Facebook: Pub?
My ancestors left England because it was trying to run their religion and their business.
Now it wants to run their email.
On the other hand I'd rather live there than the EU.
Who defines the "Terrorist"?
Is it just suicide bombers and folks assaulting civilians with deadly weapons?
Or is it anyone who opposes the policies and or people running their local and or national governments?
If they wanted to tackle extremism they would do that by going after the things that make people take things like religion and political beliefs to their extremes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Seriously, Cameron was awesome when it came to finding blunders and jumping right into the middle of them. Actually the Cameron is the SI unit for the minimum distance between two blunders.
Is Rudd really trying to outdo the grand master? It's not easy, but she's very obviously ambitious and willing to put her mind to it. Or ... well, whatever substitute she has.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Amber Rudd is not being driven by the intelligence communities, or anyone who actually understands what this is all about. What she sees is a complete outsider's view of "Think of the " without actually thinking whether there's a problem that putting measures in place will fix. All the view of the intelligence communities and professionals is that there is no purely technical solution that can be put in place to fix this, without shooting off both feet. Still, she's adamant that "Things must be done", without a clear plan of what must be done, or, more importantly why it must be done and what impact it will have (real impact, not something that exists in her head, therefore it must be true!).. I used to dislike the old Labour government for knee jerk, uninformed action, creating situations worse than the ones they were trying to solve. And it just continues on this government. The running theme behind the two is career politicians.. If we got rid of those, then we'd be a step closer to real solutions.. Another step would be to make up the policy creation bodies from experts in the field (or at least very experienced people in the field, who are able to liaise with experts when serious policy decisions need to be made).. Idiocracy here we come.
you forgot Northern Ireland.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
In the United States we have this idea that even speech we don't necessarily like should be protected- especially so. Speech that is popular doesn't need protection after all. While the US has done a piss poor job at protecting freedom of speech in the most outrageous of circumstances there is at least protection for KKK-style "hate" speech, pornography to one extent or another, and similar communications.
If terrorists are actually threatening to use violence against people you can arrest them for it. If you criminalize the speech (and your laws/police were effective at dealing with it) it doesn't mean terrorism will end. The police would have had seconds to deal with this particular case if that under the propaganda here- so eliminating encryption wouldn't have done a darn thing. And that seems to be true for most of the encryption scenarios involving terrorism that have been brought to our attention by the propaganda/media. These are nothing but scare tactics that are aimed at getting the government to eliminate freedom of speech.
Plus- a success here merely means you've succeeded in creating a larger group of disgruntled people- of which more people will then lash out violently. You can only hush people up and back them into a corner for so long. Eventually people will get together and act- often rightfully so- in violent defensive ways. Violence for the sake of violence or gain is immoral. Violence for the sake of self defence is not. We need to stop throwing people in prison who've committed no violence. We need to stop stealing (taxes) from people who have not stolen themselves. If you'd rather live in a free society with the occasional violent individual or risky driver check out the Free State Project, as we've successfully completed a project to migrate 20,000 people and with 5,000 people here already we're having a lot of success at breaking down big government and government violence used on people here in New Hampshire: http://www.freestateproject.org/
He sent encrypted messages moments before he killed four people last week, so how would unencrypted communication have prevented this? That's right, not at all, of course. Why can't they just state the obvious, that they are authoritarians who want to fully survey everyone in realtime and therefore encryption should be banned? Do voters in the UK reward hypocrisy?
#What #are #you #talking #about?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Of course you can. There were plenty of science fields banned throughout history.
Sadly, they can. They shouldn't, it's suicidally stupid, but like that ever stopped a "think of the children" hysteria.
Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
So easy to ask the questions or make the demands.
It is an entirely different thing to make it happen and work as intended.
But.. fine. Let's gather your requirements, and we'll go from there. As long as you fund the project.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Always falling on America and landing in Europe.
Like I said - stupid, but possible. You just don't have those services, or you try to keep them and have your companies collapse.
Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
When did tech companies become mosques?
This cry wolf seems no more than smoke and mirrors.
Would please someone explain me what it prevents some ISIS/Alquaeda/fictitous "terrorist" group/buck of kids setting up a tor service for private video/voice/text chat via browser?
Oh, the horror, will Britain now outlaw having open source tools too?
"Extremism" basically means anyone with an "extreme" view, but extreme against what? It's a vague meaning description. What they are really saying is, "take away privacy so know what everyone is saying like in 1984". Which makes free independent thought less likely to be expressed to anyone else. Anyone who disagrees with the "Status quo" could be considered an "extremist" (doesn't go with the flow) in the eyes of the government. Not necessarily related to physical violence. Someone who disagrees with, say the lobbying practice with politicians, or an election process that takes the vote away form the public (see USA Electoral College Vote), could be quitely silenced. This sounds very similar the style of government employed by, say Chairman Mao (who invited people to express their views to him, and any who disagreed mysteriously disappeared) or Nazi monitoring: you disagree you are an enemy of the state, and again you disappear. Or even McCarthism. (George Bush Jr. said it best, you are with us or against ). It has been shown that the crazy monitoring programs in the USA for example ,have no significant impact of violent acts of terrorism. It's not about protecting the public, it's about protecting the status quo of the government.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
I'm lost. How is this different from asking manufacturers of walkie-talkies or GMRS-style radios to take control of their products' operation and intercept all communications? If they need a finger to point, it's an IP. Having encrypted communications with a key match pretty much removes discrepancies from the accuracy of the IP-finger-pointing. Plus, they will be solving no problems, they will just be giving the entities encouragement to try another.
Always leaders when it comes to controlling and censoring the net.
is an end to extremism. But there's an elephant in the room here. Going against extremism means going against the basic concept of deeply held religious beliefs. Not the "feelings" but the actual, raw beliefs. If one is going to be rational and believe in religion then one has to accept that most religions demand some pretty extreme things from their followers, especially the Judeo-Christian variety.
Basically, going after extremism for real is a very, very touchy subject...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Like Brexit?
Have gnu, will travel.
So, some (or most?) perpetrators post hate stuff on their FB wall?
Well, then why don't you send Scotland Yard to knock on their door, have a little chat with them and if it turns out they really mean it, ask them to kindly leave the country?
Asking Google, FB etc. to delete the content instead is like deliberately destroying evidence or intelligence that could be used to prevent crimes. Stupid request.
As soon as the post office does the same thing, the tech firms will get right on it
I don't know where this idea that the further away and less accountable a government is the better the results.
I have never seen any evidence that local governments are less repressive, less corrupt, or more accountable than national governments.
If anything, I think that that experience shows that local governments tend to be more repressive and corrupt, and for the most part completely unaccountable for their actions.
True, but who is easier to get rid of? The corrupt mayor or the corrupt prime minister?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
U wot m8? You know its the conservative party saying this shite, right?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
They also supported the Turkish Caliphate against Russia in the Crimean war. They also got involved in India and sabotaged them just when various Indian non-Muslim kingdoms were ending the Mughal empire and the associated hated Islamic rule in that country. The UK has mostly been a bad actor when it came to dealing w/ Muslims
They have had a great cricket team - Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Wasim Akram etc
I'd call that a success.
Just a lame attempt by the government to be able to say "See! We're doing all we can! It's the tech companies fault!" by trying to get them to address irrelevant symptoms since it's a lot harder to tackle the actual problem itself.
"He who makes peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." - John. F. Kennedy President of the United States of America.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
True, but who is easier to get rid of? The corrupt mayor or the corrupt prime minister?
Since there are vastly more local officials than national officials, and the local officials have more power and less scrutiny, it is far harder to get rid of them than national politicians.
National politicians come and go. Local ones insert hooked barbs into the precinct and stay forever.
Tech companies SHOULD offering a "secret place for citizens to communicate"
What a load of crap that we should worry that ever single bit of communication prior to some crime MUST be known. That's nutty thinking with the end desire to never have any (legal) conversation occur outside of government recording, monitoring and evidence collection.
They're happy to defend their extremists of the Islamic kind....
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.