Slashdot Mirror
After London Attack, PM Calls For Internet Regulation To Fight Terrorists (cnn.com)
CNN reports that "At least seven people were killed in a short but violent assault that unfolded late Saturday night in the heart of the capital, the third such attack to hit Britain this year." An anonymous reader quotes their follow-up report:
Prime Minister Theresa May has called for closer regulation of the internet following a deadly terror attack in London... May said on Sunday that a new approach to tackling extremism is required, including changes that would deny terrorists and extremist sympathizers digital tools used to communicate and plan attacks. "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed," May said. "Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide. We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning."
Why stop at regulating the Internet? They were driving a white van when they carried out the attack so clamping down on white van use seems like a good idea right now. They were also carrying knives so those must be made illegal or their sales closely monitored.
What I'm waiting for is the usual statement that 'these men were already known to the security services', further proving that all of the Internet monitoring and phone tapping is of no use whatsoever.
That's what this is actually about. "Oh noes! Terrorists! We must immediately implement my agenda of Internet censorship, which is actually about porn not terror but shut up!"
You know what I'm fed up with? Politicians who crap their pants every time a terrorist does anything. That means you Ms May. You're doing exactly what they want you to do. For all Thatcher's faults, she didn't act like you and the majority of those politicians who proclaim themselves anti-terror do.
Terrorists are not going away. Either live your values, or live in fear. Your choice.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"Madam, a bunch of barbarians with knives jumped out of a van and killed civilians!"
"Begin spying on people on the Internet. That'll surely prevent it from happening!"
As if said barbarians are using internet to communicate at all, much less for openly discussing their acts... "Nahoul, have you acquired the weapons of our holy jihad to take place on London Bridge on June, 3th?" — "Yes, Assoud, very long sharp knives and a Hertz van".
They probably discuss shit in private in some back alley or something, geez.
Does she have any evidence these people actually used the internet to plan what they were doing?
And if so, why didn't all the existing mass surveillance catch them? Is ratcheting up the level of surveillance really going to help? That was their excuse for implementing it to begin with, and so far it hasn't.
There is no end to it:
(1) call for more censorship and surveillance.
(2) another attack happens anyway.
(3) goto step one, because it must not have been enough yet.
She is trying to shift blame onto the internet and companies that make secure apps, because she has utterly failed herself. As Home Secretary and now as PM, she has slashed police numbers by nearly 20,000 and tried to make up for it by increasing the use of ineffective surveillance.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Since the dawn of time, people have confused 'stopping speech' with solving the problem. It doesn't. Despite the lying panic, communication does NOT 'radicalize' people. Instead it lets other people find out about the radicalization. While it is true that a small number of lunatics that were considering minor criminal actions upgrade to larger actions, free speech does not create problems, it REVEALS them.
Stopping free speech delays the problem at best, rather than solving them. Eventually the pent up issues burst forth into violence.
Better to have a constant small stream that is deal able rather than a flash flood.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I'm impressed with this device you have that can predict the future
Not that hard.. the current crop of terrorists are all 2nd-3rd generation immigrants that have never shown any desire to adopt western values. It's very likely that the next generations of immigrants aren't going to do any better, especially since they can just move into the current Muslim dominated neighborhoods, and stay far from kuffar. And that's not even counting IS militants among the immigrants.
Terrorism: The use of unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Go find an old copy of Black's Law Dictionary from the 1700s. The original definition of terrorism *was* a government creating fear or harm for political reasons.
There's no place like
If you look at the 7/7 bombers, or the Manchester bomber, they were heavily invested in British culture and most of our values.
I'm calling bullshit on this. The Manchester bomber - Salman Abedi - is the one with which I'm familiar. He was from a traditional, "super religious" family, according to his neighbours. Even leaving aside the matter of which religion it was, being devoutly religious is already antithetical to mainstream British culture - and the fact that the family kept up a traditional Libyan lifestyle after immigrating suggests that they didn't really take on British culture, except for a few of the more superficial ones, like football and console games.
Unfortunately, the aspect of modern British culture that he did take on was social-justice activism: he lodged a complaint about Islamophobia on the part of a teacher who expressed disapproval of suicide bombings. There seems to be a worrying, and increasing, alliance between radical social-justice activists and Islamist terrorists.
Sources: A, B.
the majority of murderers and terrorists in the west are... Westerners. [...] Look at that Ander Breivik guy. Killed nearly 100 people
Anders Breivik's shooting spree in Oslo was, in fact, the third-largest attack in Western Europe since 2001 (source). Of the top ten attacks in this era by death toll, seven have been ideologically motivated by Islam, one (Anders) was extremist right-wing, and the other two were unaffiliated or unclear.
So the majority of terrorists in Europe come from the 10%-or-so of the population that are Muslim. And within that, the evidence suggests (see Salman Abedi), the terrorists come from the small subset who are devoutly religious, never really integrate into their host communities, and react negatively to any criticism of Islam, or even of violence done in the name of Islam.