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."
anon (Score:3, Insightful)
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy? Democracy?
Also, "peace" is debatable. There are a lot of people who would not feel at peace living under the Hamas world-view.
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: Define 'Terrorists' (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory video of Wesley Clark on that issue [youtube.com].
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Insightful)
You're deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the text of 1441. 1441 required that Iraq comply with weapons inspections. Those inspections took place and no WMDs were found, up to the point that the US decided to say "fuck it" to the UN and go to war. The US was the one who championed going to war with Iraq, not the UN, and the UN rejected the use of force against Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Says the anon that is distorting text 1441. It required full co-operation and full compliance of all sites, inspectors were refused entry at many sites. That was a violation of the ceasefire.
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense. Many important allies of the US such as Germany and France opposed the invasion. The veto of the Russians was not a slap in the face (this is business as usual). A slap in the face was that the foreign minister of a close ally directly questions the "evidence" for WMD presented officially as justification to invade a foreign country.
Re: (Score:2)
I know its a waste of time, but thought I'd let others know who might believe you. Iraq was developing/using WMDs on its own population [wikipedia.org]. They probably got those weapons from the US, but were making their own as well.
In order to make them stop, the UN Security Council in one of its unanimous votes passed UN resolution 1441 [wikipedia.org] aimed at stopping Iraq from developing WMDs (gas weapons that they had used on their own people already). Saddam refused to comply, period. Anything Hans Blix said is irrelevant because Saddam refused to comply with the resolution. Before the invasion there was a UN vote to use force for non-compliance, and 2 different US Congressional votes on the same thing. The only one in the world who said they shouldn't invade for non-compliance was Saddam.
They all voted this because they assumed Saddam would comply or force would not be used. Bush said what he was going to do, held the votes before he did it, and followed through.
All other claims that Bush did it by himself with no support or reasonable chances for Saddam to stop it are lying, pure and simple. The only people who believe like you do refuse to admit the truth of what happened and ignore 182,000 murders by gas attacks of his own people by Saddam.
Hi Judy, welcome to Slashdot. How's the book tour going?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They leader ship of al queda was just as well known and identified by other nation states.
Being identified and recognized are two different things in this context. Osama may well have been identified by practically anyone and their dog as the leader within Al Qaida. But being identified as a leader of something doesn't mean that the thing that is been led is also recognized.
When it comes to politics and nation states, being recognized by the international community means to be accepted as a legitimate entity. A recognized state is sovereign and its leader considered the head of state. Osama
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:4, Insightful)
Like UN schools being used as refugee camps, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
When there are rocket launchers firing from the UN school being used as a refugee camp, can you really call it a non combat area?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Even Israel never claimed there were rockets being fired from the UN schools. They alleged that the property was being used to store munitions, but that's a far cry from being used to launch attacks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Both sides have committed acts of terror since the late 40's, as an example take the assassination of Swedish UN mediator Folke Bernadotte in 1948 by Isrealites, for which Shimon Peres expressed "regret that Bernadotte was murdered in a terrorist way," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte#Assassination For anyone willing to view both sides in the conflict with an equally critical eye it quickly become apparent that both have committed acts of terror in the past and continue to do so today.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And just to elaborate unless someone skips over this important point:
When Hamas fires a missile at Israel, there is no warning and it hits civilian areas indiscriminately (there is no real set target).
When Israel fires a missile at Hamas, they are targeting a specific military target, albeit one that has been stuck in a school or hospital. Knowing this lat
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The UK started it with the Balfour Declaration, then the Zionist Organization followed by with an invasion. Arabs started to resist the invasion, and the cycle began, with many sins since then by many players. But the origin was British colonialism and Jewish millenarianism. And the recent and ongoing brutality has been primarily of Israeli origin.
There is nothing "cowardly" about hiding. That's how you win a battle. It's why we invented camouflage. That's the same charge the British leveled against American colonial fighters, that they wouldn't stand out in the open wearing bright colors and be shot like Real Men [npr.org].
And the Palestinians have been on the defensive since 1917, that's the historical fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not gonna defend that shit, but who was the one who took the ancestral land of a people, forcibly evicted them, and forces them to live in poverty in what is basically a huge open-air prison camp? It's not Hamas. Don't act as if Israel didn't start this shit, they did.
Then you'd best learn some history. After all, the ones who didn't run and stayed in Israel are citizens to this day. Mainly Druze, the ones who ran when the arab countries said "we're going to kill every jew there, and you'll get the land afterwards" are the ones that are living in your 'open-air' camps that have a standard of living beyond what most do in the other arab countries.
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not gonna defend that shit, but who was the one who took the ancestral land of a people, forcibly evicted them, and forces them to live in poverty in what is basically a huge open-air prison camp? It's not Hamas. Don't act as if Israel didn't start this shit, they did.
Then you'd best learn some history. After all, the ones who didn't run and stayed in Israel are citizens to this day. Mainly Druze, the ones who ran when the arab countries said "we're going to kill every jew there, and you'll get the land afterwards" are the ones that are living in your 'open-air' camps that have a standard of living beyond what most do in the other arab countries.
So, you're saying that no one was forced off of their land and everyone there could have stayed there and just had the state of Israel created around them? Were these people consulted about having a new nation created where they currently lived?
Re: (Score:2)
Were the Israelis consulted when the Palestinians originally kicked them off the land?
The Palestinians have been offered new land, citizenship in Israel, and many other peace deals. The Palestinians however feel that they will never stop until every Israeli is dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they're not terrorists. Retaliating against murderous ideologues, and removing their ability to kill, is not terrorism. Maybe you'll learn that someday.
You understand that that's the way Hamas views Israel, right? I'm just saying, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
Re: anon (Score:5, Interesting)
...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....
And I'm saying we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by tyrannical mass-surveillance states that use the justification of "terrorism" to develop their ability to oppress their populations. I'm saying that needs to be front and center!
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm saying you're a government bitch. If all your kind died the world would be a much better place.
Either you misunderstood me, or I don't understand what you're trying to say. Because what I said was anti-government surveillance. ???
Re: (Score:2)
How is the parent's statement pro-government?
Re: (Score:2)
why not just ask him.. (Score:3)
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...
Talk about blaming the messenger (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Talk about blaming the messenger (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Talk about blaming the messenger (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
And as a reward for checking the "[x] are you a terrorist" box their screen overflows with seventy-two dancing virgins.
Each one a fat neckbeard who's just taken a break from ranting about ethics in games journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sag7... [blogspot.com]
That's only half of the story! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK police have an image problem which is seriously impacting their ability to fight crime - and he is one of the reasons.
Benjamin Franklin got it right (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Benjamin Franklin got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
We modern, civilized people in the 21st century want safety and control.
Speak for yourself. Ultimately we end up locking everyone in cages under 24/7 surveillance and then you have 100% "safety" and control. What you safety nuts fail to understand is that the criminal will always, ALWAYS have the initiative. All these attempts at enforcing pre-crime and thought crime merely result in abuse by authorities but not actual "safety".
Re: (Score:2)
Or Airstrip One.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone always drags [the Franklin quote] out in any discussion like this as if its some kind of killer quote that nullifies any further discussion.
And someone always moderates it up, as if it's new and interesting and not at all cliche.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-aggression principal. Voluntarism. Private-property. Look it up sometime and educate yourself.
Define "aggression". If I use my purchasing power to undercut your profit margin, am I acting aggressively? If I am competing with you in business and corner the market on a required resource, am I acting aggressively? If I buy up all the water rights in a particular area, am I acting aggressively? If I use low-quality materials and don't tell anyone, am I acting aggressively?
F Mark Rowley (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
"If you aren't with us, you're against us." (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that I love Big Brother.
Typical Policeman (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
A Very Public Warning (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Terrorism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not just the tech industry either (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The widening divide (Score:3)
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.
Afraid of freedom? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
That's his job! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This is the backstory? (Score:2)
What a load of bullcrap (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
By that definition (Score:2)
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?
And I Bet He Still Locks His Front Door (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about complaining about this first? (Score:2)
Does he make the same comments about (Score:2)
weapons and explosives manufacturers?
What's being done by those companies to stop terrorists from misusing their products?
I sell pens and paper (Score:2)
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.
What new challenges? (Score:2)
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
1 man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (Score:2)
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
Ban the AK-47 (Score:2)
I see terrorists usually carrying AK-47s. Maybe we should ban those.
I'm Sorry That I Got Caught (Score:2)
No, dickweed, YOU created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement by abusing your privileges.
In other news... (Score:2)
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
the government is friendly to terrorists too! (Score:2)
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?
Or put another way... (Score:2)
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.
don't blame Snowden (Score:2)
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.
Advocacy of a police state (Score:3)
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.
Front and Center (Score:2)
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.
Quote must be wrong (Score:2)
Snowden didn't create any environment, the NSA did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)