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.
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?
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?
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?
Aaaaaaand he was a Muslim convert. What's your point? That if we hadn't imported tons of Islam he would still have converted?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Aaaaaaand he was a Muslim convert. What's your point? That if we hadn't imported tons of Islam he would still have converted?
Quite possibly. There is this thing called the Internet, you know.
So to circumvent the spreading of Islamic danger, we should control every form of communication? I see where this is going.
Nope, I'm saying you will never be able to stop extremism, and fascist acts such as destroying personal privacy and xenophobic/nationalistic acts such as barring all immigrants from a single specific category won't work and will end up hurting, not helping your society in the long run.
There is a sliding scale. Most Muslims in the US have integrated into society quite nicely. The UK used to be able to say the same thing. Letting a million or so come in at once and not even attempting to ensure assimilation has caused the problem. We could say the same of Germany, Poland, Sweden, and any other Country who has done the same thing as the UK.
Going a bit further, I don't believe that this is an issue with just Muslims. They happen to be the biggest influx in most of those countries so the easiest to discuss. The US has similar issues with people from South America who have no interest in integrating and hate the US. They just want the stuff the US hands out (not all of them, but there is a measurable percentage).
When people come from areas that do not have free speech and they learn the power of suppressing speech, why would you think they would want free speech when they move into your country? If people come from an area that deals with legal issues by violence, why would that immediately change in your country?
Assimilation of immigrants should be the discussion, which requires temperament with how many immigrants a Country allows.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.