Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Privacy United Kingdom Communications Security Technology

UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists' 230

An anonymous reader points out comments from Mark Rowley, the UK's national police lead for counter-terrorism, who thinks tech companies aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from using their services. He said, "[The acceleration of technology] can be set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them ... and creates challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that." Rowley wouldn't name which companies in particular he's talking about, but he added, "Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement and intelligence agencies and the bad guys are better informed. We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'

Comments Filter:
  • anon (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:19AM (#49526189)

    OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

    • Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:57AM (#49526269)

      Saudi Arabia indiscriminately bombed Yemen for 3 weeks, untold number of civilians were killed

      Saudi claims that the Houthis are the terrorists, but to the residents in Yemen who have their domiciles bombed and family members killed, the Saudis are the terrorists

      Hamas launched their rockets into Israel, Israel retaliates with full scale massive military campaign --- Gaza Strip almost flattened as a result

      While Hamas are terrorists (nobody can deny it) the Israelis are also not that 'non-terrorists' either

      Now, let me ask you guys ... who supply the Israelis and the Saudis with the bombs?

      So this guy in London is saying that ISP is 'terrorist friendly' --- but of course, many ISPs around the world are in very good terms with Uncle Sam, the supply of bombs to both Saudi Arabia and to Israel

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @06:40AM (#49526345)

        You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy..

          And for social justice and benefactors for the poor and unwanted. Reality is a complicated thing which those having most power wish to reform to their liking to preserve and justify their viewpoint, however criminal or malicious that might be.

        • by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:28AM (#49526679)

          You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...

          Just like the brave, glorious Afghan mujahedeen that where fighting for their freedom against the vile Russian invaders. Everyone knows the rest.

        • Democracy? Democracy?

          Also, "peace" is debatable. There are a lot of people who would not feel at peace living under the Hamas world-view.

      • by dotancohen ( 1015143 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @07:41AM (#49526505) Homepage

        Hamas launched their rockets into Israel, Israel retaliates with full scale massive military campaign --- Gaza Strip almost flattened as a result. While Hamas are terrorists (nobody can deny it) the Israelis are also not that 'non-terrorists' either

        How did the US retaliate when Al Qaeda attacked them? How many Afghans were killed in that campaign, and how long did it last?

        How did the US retaliate when Iraq attacked them? How many Iraqis were killed in that campaign, and how long did it last? For that matter, exactly _when_ did Iraq attack the US?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:01AM (#49526565)

          Iraq didn't attack the USA. The USA used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. After (some of) the people caught on, they used WMDs as an excuse. After some more people caught on, they switched to using "spreading democracy" as an excuse. Of course, the real reason had to do with oil and getting Halliburton rich, but most of the public still believes the democracy ruse.

          As for Afghanistan, we didn't really do anything to them. Sure, we got Bin Laden, but by that time he was almost dead anyway and that was just for political posturing by Obama, not to stop any real threat.

          • When Obama announced that Bin Laden hsd been killed it pre-empted Donald Trump off of TV, at least for one night. So at least some good came from it.
          • by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:35AM (#49526701)

            As for Afghanistan, we didn't really do anything to them. Sure, we got Bin Laden, but by that time he was almost dead anyway and that was just for political posturing by Obama, not to stop any real threat.

            Did you miss the whole war in Afghanistan? Quite a bit happened before the seals choppered into a complex then shot him and dumped his body in the ocean. Is anyone even sure that happened, if it did I doubt it did the way they say it did..

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Quite a bit happened before the seals choppered into a complex then shot him and dumped his body in the ocean. Is anyone even sure that happened, if it did I doubt it did the way they say it did..

              Nearly everybody in the complex killed and who remained has never even been brought forward to account for events. The most hated man was shot on sight instead of being drug into a kangaroo court to be humiliated for a year before being put to death just like every other villain the US put its hands on. His body was respectfully buried in a conveniently unrecoverable and unspecific location. The trumpets weren't even continuously sounded for political and military benefit with no end when even that silly "m

              • Quite a bit happened before the seals choppered into a complex then shot him and dumped his body in the ocean. Is anyone even sure that happened, if it did I doubt it did the way they say it did..

                Nearly everybody in the complex killed and who remained has never even been brought forward to account for events. The most hated man was shot on sight instead of being drug into a kangaroo court to be humiliated for a year before being put to death just like every other villain the US put its hands on. His body was respectfully buried in a conveniently unrecoverable and unspecific location. The trumpets weren't even continuously sounded for political and military benefit with no end when even that silly "mission accomplished" presentation was stretched far too long.

                Yeah, I'd imagine you are right. One big obvious question is: why isn't anyone talking about it?

                No one is talking about it because most people still think the evening news (or its equivalent these days) presents an accurate picture of what's happening in the world.

                I once was talking to a guy who said, "You wouldn't believe how much of the news is bullshit." And I responded, "No, you wouldn't believe how much of the news is bullshit." I then asked him if he thought Bin Laden had been killed that May (It had recently happened). He said he did and seemed incredulous that I didn't, or at least question

                • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

                  Honestly, you're absolutely right that I have no first-hand proof of bin Laden's killing. I really have no first-hand proof of much of anything outside of my personal experience.

                  You have to trust someone to give you facts, or failing that, you have to accept that the world outside your own experience may well be a shifting reality which is almost entirely out of your control. Which in fact, it is, but probably not to the extent that the conspiracy theorists out there believe.

                  It's entirely possible bin Lad

                • "It's really hard to pull yourself out of the mindset and start doubting what you are told by people you used to trust"

                  Why did people ever trust anyone in the first place? In the history of this world has there ever been a leader of any even halfway-powerful nation, empire, kingdom or tribe that wasn't thoroughly corrupt? Surely no one gets that far without learning to lean on the media!

                  Maybe, just maybe somwehere some leader started out good before being corrupted by power. I doubt it though. The very per

          • by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @11:56AM (#49528467)

            The Halliburton reasoning is as tired as the WMD reasoning. The real reason we went into Iraq is because sanctions were failing, countries were wanting to pull out of them after a decade of them failing to cause Saddam to be overthrown, and we wanted to take a mulligan and try again.

            The reason we went into Iraq is that our government regretted leaving Saddam Hussein in power and were determined to correct the mistake. 9/11 provided the best possible cover for that. Contrary to popular opinion, politicians aren't exactly the same as marionettes that dance on the strings of corporations. There is definitely conflict of interest, but the politicians had a very specific idea of how they think the world needs to look. That is why they got into politics to begin with. The ability to exercise power by politicians who were hoping to change the world is why we went into Iraq, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. That's worth more to a politician than a billion dollars in campaign funds, because they only take the billion so that they get the chance to do things like start wars or make a name for themselves as peace brokers.

            They thought that they could overthrow Saddam and realign the Middle East more firmly in the US camp by dint of freeing the population, who would be duly grateful. The miscalculation was that even if such a thing was possible in 1991, it wasn't going to happen in 2003. Sadly, I think the problem with the war and its outcome was that it was insufficiently cold-blooded in approach. We didn't do the math, and we clearly didn't understand the facts on the ground. It has every hallmark of the use of a professional military to create a situation that was completely bungled in the hands of the politicians it was handed off to. As a conspiracy, it was a poor one. As some politician's wish fulfillment, it makes perfect sense.

      • Israel and The Saudies are not terrorists, they are nation states. There leadership does not hide, they have been recognized as nation states by the other nation states.

        • Israel and The Saudies are not terrorists, they are nation states. There leadership does not hide, they have been recognized as nation states by the other nation states.

          I recently learned that this is the crucial difference between Al Qaeda and, say, the CIA. The US considers only acts by "non-state actors" to be terrorism. So if the CIA were to plant bombs and blame the resulting carnage on Communists it would not be terrorism, even though it is violence designed to elicit a political response. Because they work for a government.

      • As any field medic will tell you, it's always nice to have a clean flat strip of Gaza.
  • by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:26AM (#49526205) Homepage Journal

    why not just ask him if he thinks security companies are a bad thing? are companies providing encryption for the police forces doing a bad thing? or should they just forget their data in cars that get stolen unencrypted?

    how does he think he can eat the cake and then continue to have it? he can have part of the cake after eating but it's going to smell shitty, so why would anyone use the security companies giving him the cake first...

  • by Chatsubo ( 807023 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:29AM (#49526211)

    Does one really have to state the obvious? Snowden didn't "create" anything.

    Companies don't find those entities untrustworthy because Snowden reported it, they find them untrustworthy because it turns out they are untrustworthy. If Snowden didn't report it they would've found it out eventually some other way.

    • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:54AM (#49526265)

      He's part of the "system". Therefore, his view is that anyone who isn't directly supporting the "system" is opposing it. Which means you're opposing him and the "good" work that he is doing. You are friendly to the "terrorists".

      "Terrorists" in this case being defined as anyone Mark Rowley does not agree with.

      Personally, I think that there are far more corrupt cops and corrupt politicians and so on who would abuse their authority than there are terrorists who can attack us.

      • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @06:23AM (#49526311)

        Personally, I think that there are far more corrupt cops and corrupt politicians and so on who would abuse their authority than there are terrorists who can attack us.

        Nice job, asshole. You're letting the terrists win. If WE say THEY are The Bad Guys(TM), then they're The Bad Guys, end of discussion. We have to keep data on everyone, just to keep The Bad Guys in check, and to keep YOU safe. Also, we need to be able to drone-strike any civilian at any point on the planet to protect your children and puppies and kittens from being indiscriminately killed by religious extremists living a Middle Ages lifestyle on the other side of the planet.

      • by nucrash ( 549705 )

        This is exactly right. I was going to dumb it down to, "If you're not for us, you're against us" mentality. You can only provide secure communications or insecure communications. Any backdoor given to outsiders automatically becomes insecure communications. This includes law enforcement of any kind at any level.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Especially if you look at all the moles that have been found in intelligence agencies. (And the smarter moles that have not been found...) These people cannot keep secrets as soon as more than a very small number of people has access.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    He forgot to mention that an increasing number of tech companies is also friendly to child molesters, baby-eating cannibals, and people who drown kittens for fun.

    • He also did not mention the major riots in the UK a few years ago, which happened because a lot of people thought known gangsters were more trustworthy than the police.

      The UK police have an image problem which is seriously impacting their ability to fight crime - and he is one of the reasons.

  • by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:37AM (#49526233)
    “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
    • by NicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:55AM (#49526267)

      He never actually said that. The "liberty" was "essential liberties," and the security was "a little, temporary safety." Which completely changes the meaning of the sentence from don't-think-authority-BAD to a desire for critical thinking and balance between the needs of everyone as a whole (ie: the government in a democracy) and the needs of the individual.

      Which makes sense if you look at what he actually did. Prior to the US Constitution there was no actual Federal government, there was a late-18th-century version of the UN Security Council called Congress. In theory it was supreme in many matters, but without it's own bureaucracy/Army/etc. it had trouble doing things like convincing Connecticut to give up it's claim to Chicago. This anti-freedom monster everyone worries about (the Federal government) was actually created by him at the Constitutional Convention. The Articles of Confederation government was unable to provide any "safety" from being reconquered by the Brits, largely because it couldn't directly affect anyone's individual liberty. It could not even tax you directly, it had to convince your state to do that, and then turn over the money to Congress.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by argStyopa ( 232550 )

      While I suspect we agree on the principles here, let me just call out that quote by Franklin as one of those thoughtless crap statements that's far too often repeated. (Like "correlation doesn't prove causation" as another example.)

      We trade "freedom" for "security" every day; it's called civilization, and it's what separates the ego-driven society of barbarians from the rule of law of townsmen. The fact that our civilization is so successful suggests that it is overall a worthwhile choice.

      • We trade "freedom" for "security" every day; it's called civilization

        If you're trading freedom for security, you're doing it wrong. They are mutually dependent. You have both or neither, not one or the other.

        What does it mean to not be free? It means you can't live your life as you want because someone -- the state, the group with a "monopoly on violence", where one exists -- will use violence to stop you. You don't have security when you are subject to state violence that restricts freedom.

        And what is

  • F Mark Rowley (Score:5, Insightful)

    by putaro ( 235078 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @05:37AM (#49526235) Journal

    I regard the threat to my privacy and civil liberty by criminals like Mark Rowley as much more significant than that posed by terrorists. Snowden didn't make companies add more encryption. Overreach by government agencies caused it. They're just trying to shoot the messenger but they created the problem by circumventing or ignoring the law.

    • Re:F Mark Rowley (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pla ( 258480 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @12:14PM (#49528643) Journal
      They're just trying to shoot the messenger but they created the problem by circumventing or ignoring the law.

      The real problem here - And finish reading this post before you start shooting at me - Rowley has it absolutely correct. Tech companies do behave in ways friendly to terrorists.

      Except, he has committed a fundamental attribution error [wikipedia.org] by assuming they do in support of actual terrorism. Tech companies don't support terrorism - They support fairness, they support security, they support usability, for everyone. Unfortunately, "safe" and "secure" includes "from government tampering", and "fair" and "everyone" includes terrorists.

      If the encryption software I use doesn't block all attempts to intercept my data, whether by flaw or by design, I will use something that does. Simple as that. Tech companies behave in ways friendly to terrorists because tech companies can't readily discriminate between the actions of crackers and governments, between privacy advocates and terrorists, between a legal court-ordered wiretap and an NSA hijacking - Nor should they.
  • Haven't heard that one before...

    It's called COINTELPRO, guys. Until you have death-penalty level safeguards in place for misuse/abuse of information gained through mass surveillance, you don't get to do it.

    Not with our permission, anyway.

    • The only problem is: they are already doing it. Without "our permission". And nobody is doing anything concrete to stop them. And it's possible that there *isn't* anything concrete that can be done to stop them on their tracks (although we can diminish their momentum with the judicious applying of cryptography and security conscience)...
  • Typical Policeman wants other people to do all the work to prevent crime and wants rid of anything that can be possibly used for crime.
    • by rvw ( 755107 )

      Typical Policeman wants other people to do all the work to prevent crime and wants rid of anything that can be possibly used for crime.

      Except of course that he and his brothers may use it any way they like it.

  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @06:01AM (#49526277) Homepage

    A police chief that clearly stands for the police state, where public and private partnerships arbitrarily decide who is guilty and who is not and deny access to those them deem to be what ever they deem them to be for what ever reason they deem ie guilt upon accusation without proof. So how do you keep terrorists from attacking your customers without securing your services. How do you adhere to principles of a countries constitutions when you start ignoring them to convenience the police state.

    So Mr Police Chief, why are convicted terrorists allowed full access to the internet because until you prove you case, they are not terrorists they are suspects. So the headline should be "Too many corporations allow secure access to the Internet for potential suspects of crime". As for suspect being less informed about police tactics, hey shit for brains Police chief, all of your tactics are by law required to be subject to public review and be taken into account at the next election as a measure of how well that government is handling the justice system. A citizen has a right to review all the actions of a government and then they get to choose whether they approve and vote for them again or whether they disapprove and vote for someone else.

    • A police chief that clearly stands for the police state, where public and private partnerships arbitrarily decide who is guilty and who is not and deny access to those them deem to be what ever they deem them to be for what ever reason they deem ie guilt upon accusation without proof. So how do you keep terrorists from attacking your customers without securing your services. How do you adhere to principles of a countries constitutions when you start ignoring them to convenience the police state.

      So Mr Police Chief, why are convicted terrorists allowed full access to the internet because until you prove you case, they are not terrorists they are suspects. So the headline should be "Too many corporations allow secure access to the Internet for potential suspects of crime". As for suspect being less informed about police tactics, hey shit for brains Police chief, all of your tactics are by law required to be subject to public review and be taken into account at the next election as a measure of how well that government is handling the justice system. A citizen has a right to review all the actions of a government and then they get to choose whether they approve and vote for them again or whether they disapprove and vote for someone else.

      Oh I thought he was making the statement that too many tech companies were helping terrorist police states in domestic and foreign spying.

  • So how do you like your slippery slope? We never did bother defining what a "terrorist" actually is. Pretty soon it will include anyone who disagrees with official government policy.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It does not already? My impression was that saying anything that the authorities do not like can very easily get you a few days in jail in the UK, even if what you do is perfectly legal.

  • by Floyd-ATC ( 2619991 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @06:21AM (#49526303) Homepage
    Car manufacturers aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from driving cars. Oil companies aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from using diesel and petrol. Food companies aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from eating food. Pencil manufacturers aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from writing. Shoe manufacturers aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from walking. I could go on but I won't. He probably will. Snowden has made a few more people aware of the fact that many people who work in law enforcement agencies and intelligence services think they have a right to ignore the law. Particularly the law in other countries.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Actually, in these countries, "law enforcement" often has the legal right to ignore the law, and when they do not, nothing happens to them anyways. Of course, they have zero moral/ethical standing, but these people do not have morals/ethics anyways and are often clinically insane and a danger to the public. One of the defining characteristics of a police-state.

  • by Jesrad ( 716567 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @07:01AM (#49526397) Journal

    So now "terrorism" basically means any kind of activity that might undermine the state's supremacy of power. Mark Rowley's candid admittance is perfectly in line with how, for instance, Missouri's police forces refer to protesters as "enemy forces" [cnn.com]. And of course, if you're not helping with enforcing this supremacy, actively betraying your own principles in the process (and, no Mr officer, saying 'Some days, I hate my job' while you break into an innocent's home and plunder their stuff [nationalreview.com], does not exonerate you in any way) then you are with THEM.

  • The sword of internet censorship cuts both ways. If you don't want to be censored yourself, then you shouldn't be censoring others. Are your ideologies so weak they cannot stand on their own merits? Are you so afraid of opposing views, that governments feel the need to censor terrorist publications on the internet? I'm no fan of terrorism, or ISIS or any extreme views, but personally, I think they have just as much right to spew their hatred of us as we have to spew our hatred of them. Keep the net fre

    • by Meneth ( 872868 )

      Keep the net freely accessible to all, even those you don't like.

      Especially those you don't like. Those you do like need no protection from you.

  • by jareth-0205 ( 525594 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @07:20AM (#49526451) Homepage

    Why would we think he would say anything else? That's his job, and presumably he's surrounded by plots and threats that he needs to counter every day, so his perspective is going to be a little biased.

    The important thing is that whenever a policeman or agent says something like this, we respond by thinking "well obviously he would say that" and take a view on whether that is proportionate based on the wider civil liberties consequences. The fault is not that they would want that, everyone always wants more power to do their job more effectively, is that we have weak politicians that grant it too easily.

    • by Steve B ( 42864 )
      The problem is that I don't believe his implicit statement about what exactly his job is. He wants us to think that it's all about catching Bad People who are pretty much universally recognized as such; the reality is that it keeps extending to personal and political opponents of the people in power.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Why would we think he would say anything else? That's his job, and presumably he's surrounded by plots and threats that he needs to counter every day, so his perspective is going to be a little biased.

      You are right, and that is why the police must never influence or make laws or define which laws they are exempt from: They do not and cannot have a neutral view of the issues. A "police state" is not some construct established by nefarious evil people, it is just what happens when the police gets their way too often.

  • Sometimes I feel like I am living in the long prequel novel which explains how the world in 1984 evolved.
  • by TrentTheThief ( 118302 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @07:45AM (#49526517)

    Snowden did not create a hostile environment for governments and intelligence agencies. The actions of governments accomplished that entirely on their own.

    Mr. Rowley make's his statement based on a 1950's mindset where "the government is your friend and can be trusted" was a common theme. Well, unfortunately, that illusion was dispelled many, many years ago after repeated episodes of government scandals, outright lies, and law breaking.

    “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. -Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 1854.”

    Governments and their intel organizations fucked away the public's trust long ago.

    The remainder of Mr's Rowley's statement is yet another poke intended to plant an idea that the public should support laws against the civilian use of encryption for data and communications.

    Don't let that 1984 supporter bullshit you.

    Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement and intelligence agencies and the bad guys are better informed. We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."

  • Newspapers are friendly to terrorists, basic spycraft has been passing messages via advertisements forever. It uses advanced encryption that if done right can not be broken. Tagging buildings, the daily special at a diner, notes taped under park benches, etc etc have all been used to let people communicate in a clandestine manner should be ban all of those?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:35AM (#49526699)

    Front door locks restrict movement. Police, firefighters and ambulance techs must stop and deal with a locked front door in an emergency. This wastes precious time. Therefore all front door locks should be removed. This follows from the same sort of logic this supposed expert used.

    I say supposed expert because he obviously has no business being in that job. He's admitting he's bad at it and blaming any past, current or potential failures on other people and organizations. If he had the slightest understanding of security he would have at least some sense of how incredibly irresponsible his attempt at blaming and shaming really is.

    Part of the reason he won't name names? They'd have their own staff experts hammer him for his incompetence.

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Not to support that guy's inane rambling, but this is a terrible analogy -- the difference of course being that the police _CAN_ break the lock on your house.

      Yes it may take a couple of extra seconds, but that's a far cry from the couple of extra universe lifetimes it could take to break properly implemented encryption.

      It would be a more apt analogy if your typical front door was a 24" steel vault door that takes several hours of torching to cut through (and presumably the rest of your house would be equall

  • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:51AM (#49526767)

    Please find below what he actualy said:

    Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
    We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

    (Man, this is more insightfull and scary than funny. Especially that last bit.)

  • Some government institutions are unfriendly to citizens.
  • weapons and explosives manufacturers?

    What's being done by those companies to stop terrorists from misusing their products?

  • I don't screen my customers againt watch-lists and I don't refuse to sell to customers who wear t-shirts spoiting hate or anti-patriotic messages.

    I guess this makes me a technology vendor who is friendly to people who might be terrorists.

    --
    The above is hypothetical - or is it? I'm not and office-supply vendor but most office-suppu vendors could've written what is avove and be telling the truth.

  • The UK has had total access to all communications networks in the UK since WW1.
    Defence of the Realm Act 1914 gave vast new powers. HOW (Home Office Warrant) like use was expanded into the 1950's and beyond.
    The UK had total mastery of all emerging telco sat systems in the 1960's, CSO Morwenstow/GCHQ Bude.
    Irelands telco networks (domestic and all connections in and out) where all well understood.
    As internet use, desktop crypto and mobile phone use became more common the UK had a few ideas about how to he
  • I am fairly sure that the UK (and US, for that matter) government do not consider most of the non-IS rebels in Syria to be terrorists but as Freedom Fighters, although Bashar al-Assad (Syrian President) definitely does label them as terrorists.

    As this is basically a different point of view, it is totally assinine of Mark Rowley and shows a complete lack of awareness about what technology is capable of.
    Granted, Youtube, Twitter, et. al., can block or delete content and accounts that display objectionable mat

  • I see terrorists usually carrying AK-47s. Maybe we should ban those.

  • Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement

    No, dickweed, YOU created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement by abusing your privileges.

  • Some grocery stores are friendly to terrorists. These institutions are BLITHELY keeping these monsters alive, with no regard for the horrible acts they commit on a full stomach, or with what appears to be a full stomach. If not for these bastions of sin, we could weed out all of these evildoers without firing a single bullet, but for some reason, these nourishment dealers continue to peddle their wares to anyone who will show them a little green.

    It's time we stand up and say ENOUGH! Think of the children

  • Terrorists are using government provided roads to kill thousands, government provided passports to cross borders, and usually arrive at government-subsidized airports and are guided safely by government-run air traffic control! Why does the government love terrorism so much?

  • Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly to USERS Privacy'

    Funny how if you prevent the government from doing something it is automatically a threat for terrorism.

  • Snowden was the canary in the coalmine. He's not the only one who recognized that governments are abusing their power; he's just the poster boy.

  • by MondoGordo ( 2277808 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @01:18PM (#49529331)

    Mark Rowley, the UK's national police lead for counter-terrorism, said, "[The acceleration of technology] can be set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them ... and creates challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that."

    Rephrasing that and removing the "mealy-mouth" what he is saying is "Tech companies who don't actively support the expansion of the police state by any means necessary are friendly to terrorists." This is a patently ridiculous statement for which he would be burned in effigy if he stated it openly ... which is why he couches it in vagueness.

  • I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."

    When desires of government bureaucrats is "front and center" of thinking for a company making consumer products, then the company isn't working for it's customers any more. This is a system that has been tried before (and currently, in some places). In the 1930's and 40's it was called Fascism.

  • Snowden didn't create any environment, the NSA did.

The possession of a book becomes a substitute for reading it. -- Anthony Burgess

Working...