New GCHQ Chief Says Social Media Aids Terrorists 228
An anonymous reader sends this report from Sky News:
The new head of GCHQ has accused social media websites of helping terror groups and called for closer ties with intelligence agencies. "'However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us." ... Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Not a win (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First off, being a Muslim has nothing to do with screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like.
really [bbc.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2)
Jeezuz, are you really that dim, or are you just trolling? I can't tell. The behaviors are so similar sometimes.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yep [salon.com].
Nobody with a brain cell takes that moonbat rag seriously. Your moniker is not inaccurate.
Comparing a dozen or two christian abortion-clinic bombers (who are scumbags, yes) to hundreds of thousands of deranged muslims (ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Taliban, etc.) who are raping and beheading thousands and thousands of perfectly innocent people, even their own kind, is a douche move at best with a clearly biased agenda.
Re:Not a win (Score:4, Insightful)
So what were you saying. The exchange seems to have been (with different people involved in each step of course):
1. A claim that muslims exhibit the behaviour of "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like".
2. A claim that being a muslim has nothing to do with "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like".
3. A source showing some muslims setting an embassy on fire, rioting, and demanding death to some people, because said people expressed a view the muslims didn't like.
4. A source showing some christians killing people and blowing things up.
3. is clearly supposed to be evidence for the claim in 1. - you don't have to think it's good evidence, but it is at least clearly about the claim in 1.
4. On the other hand has nothing to do with either of the claims in 1. or 2. So what were you trying to show by that link?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as I said you don't have to think it's good evidence.
But that has nothing to do with my actual question: what does christians killing people and blowing things up has to do with the claims?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing - someone mispercieved your response as a claim that Muslims are inherently more violent than other groups, and things appear to have snowballed from there.
The reality is, "most generalizations are false, including this one."
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point was that there are sub-groups within most religions that are more reactionary than the majority. To pick another random example there were people celebrating outside the White House when Bin Laden was assassinated, but they are hardly representative of the majority of Americans. Their behaviour is not to be taken as evidence that all Americans are like that.
Even in places like Pakistan where most of the outrage over the cartoons was, most people didn't give a shit. Sales of US flags and li
Re: (Score:2)
OK that's a reasonable, if obtuse way of saying it, argument.
I guess I was applying my standard filter of "muslims" being short hand for "the crazy muslims who actually have a tiny impact on other people, say by forcing their religion on others, and hence matter" as opposed to including my mother in law.. Just like when people are complaining about "christians" I'm assuming they mean "the crazy christians who actually have an impact on other people, say by demanding creationism be taught in science class, a
Re: (Score:3)
I also need to try and read sentences that I rewrite to remove words that were part of the old version. But given there's an example of that in basically every post I make success seems unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm a shitty mind reader, I don't have magic powers after all, that would be why I didn't try to read ay minds. The clue to that would the part where I asked for an explanation of what you were trying to say and show with that link rather that just reading your mind, and provided some details about my impressions of the state of the conversation at the time since I didn't assume you could read my mind either.
Of course now I'm more confused since I don't see what someone being a hypocrite has to d
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not a win (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess he means muslim countries.
Any country defined (by themselves) as "a muslim country" falls into the view: "screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like".
As a test, try to go to a "muslim country" and tell them you are gay...
There are also other countries where this happens, like Russia (recently on the news) but the point is it does happen in every muslim country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about Islam but a few teens recently got into s lot of trouble over posting a video of themselves dancing. I think it was iran- but a google search would say for sure. Posting from my phone so i'm not going to bother at the moment.
Derp (Score:2, Informative)
Russia does not have anti-gay laws, you can be gay in Russia all you want and nobody cares. In fact the Daily show went out with a camera crew during the Sochi games trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people (in both Sochi and Moscow) and could not find any. That report was not discussed on any major News station of course, but it's there for your review as are other people doing similar reporting trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people.
What Russia does have is laws that prevent gays from
Re: (Score:2)
"In my opinion, this is not discriminating or oppressive."
That's because you're discriminating and oppressive so your opinion is based on an abnormal starting point. Assad, Gaddafi, Putin, Stalin, and the Kim Jong dynasty probably don't think anything they do is oppressive either, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.
"It would be discriminating and oppressive if they had competing "Hetero Pride" and "Gay Pride" parades, or "Hetero Lifestyle" and "Gay Lifestyle" public debates and only one side received
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, there are no anti-gay laws in Russia ... except when they are cited explicitly by government officials as a reason for removing a statue of Steve Jobs because Tim Cook announced that he is gay. Let me guess, Russia didn't invade and illegaly annex the Crimea either?
I guess it's time for you to turn off your reality distortion field.
Re: (Score:2)
A political decision to remove a statue because of public pressure is now a "law"? Did we pass new laws in Iraq when we pulled down statues of Saddam Hussein, or did we remove the statues because they celebrated something that the populace saw as wrong? Did the Ukraine pull down statues of Stalin and Lenin because of "Laws", or because public opinion of those people changed?
I'm pretty sure that the answer to both of those questions would match the answers to removing the statue of Steve Jobs. Hint: It's
Re: (Score:2)
Russia didn't invade and illegaly annex the Crimea either?
I should have also pulled this little gem out, because it demonstrates your absolute ignorance. Crimea voted with almost 90% margin to annex to Russia. Crimea leases numerous ports and bases to Russia for profit, so this magical invasion that CNN claimed never happened. Ships that were already there remained there, troops that were on bases remained in bases. You can't even keep the difference between Donesk and Crimea in your dialogue.
When a vote does not move the way the US wants the vote to move, the
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.themalaymailonline.... [themalaymailonline.com]
kettle pot black.
Just in case you don't realise that Islam is not like the soft fluffy, inclusive, benign Christianity you are used to here is another example: http://mohabatnews.com/index.p... [mohabatnews.com]
FYI I'm an atheist I hold all religions to some degree in contempt, some more than others
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that every time someone says something like wanting no religious accommodation in schools. Muslim groups start screaming "islamophobia or islamophobe" some other type of crap, it does seem to be particular to them.
But sure, there's fanatical people. What's the difference between Muslims and Christians? Two things, first Christians don't believe that all people are Christian or born as such. Islam dictates that all people are. Second, Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Isl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that "rational muslims" are considered "not muslims" by a very large segment of the population. And even if you take the most conservative guess based on previous studies you're looking at 25%(that's in western countries) that openly support terrorism, death of apostates, and so on. You look for the same views in other countries, and it varies between 40-70% of support, especially in muslim countries. So while you say evil isn't born, it's created you've got a large swath of people out th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the difference between Muslims and Christians? Two things, first Christians don't believe that all people are Christian or born as such. Islam dictates that all people are.
Islam wants all people to be Muslims, and considers Muslims superior. But then, Christianity wants all people to be Christians, and considers Christians superior. Neither religion believes all people are born as such, neither religion dictates that all people are. The mainstream religion, that is. If you search long enough you can find loons that believe anything, including that the earth is flat or the sky is green. It is not so hard to find loons that want to shoot all those dangerous lefty atheists.
Second, Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Islam has had none.
Islam
Re: (Score:2)
The Spanish inquisition has probably killed less people than were killed at the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. And if I remember correctly, they were, in fact, less cruel than the usual legal practices back then.
Re: (Score:3)
But sure, there's fanatical people. What's the difference between Muslims and Christians?
Basically the difference is the name. Put an extreme Muslim next to an extreme Christian and it's hard to tell the difference, same with your everyday Joe Muslim and Johnny Christian. All religions have the potential to have the extremists, even none religious do (only they have to look harder for justification). It just so happens to be the Muslims turn in the spotlight to be 'the baddies' before that the Russians, before that the Germans, before that the Germans again etc etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Islam has had none. Also, your "dangerous holy crusades" were in response to Muslims. More so the out-right slaughter, rape, murder, and forced conversion of Christians in Spain...that had been on-going for nearly 100 years by that time.
Glad to see someone else pointing this out, instead of listening to the apologist historical revisionists who cherry pick their history, and act as though nothing lead up to the Crusades except for "christian greed" (okay, that might have been *a* factor, but far from the only or main one); or that somehow 90% of middle east region had willingly, peacefully, converted to Islam, when the area was already the original home of Judaism and Christianity, as well as older pagan religions. Anyone who even read a
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), Islam has had none.
Which isn't true at all. Islam has gone through many twists and turns and in fact, there are a number of competing 'versions' of Islam duking it out at present. Can't look it up at the moment, but there is an article in The Atlantic online that speaks to that. Plenty of other references as well.
Personally, I think they're all insane, but I;m obviously a minority.
Re: (Score:3)
over here in Canada it's not the Muslims bitching and whining, it's the Jews (omg! anti-Semitic!!) - they use hate speech laws to prevent people learning of their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by threatening media organisations.
Muslim countries didn't trump up charges and go after Assange.
Muslim countries didn't jail Manning.
Muslim countries aren't after Snowden.
Muslim countries didn't jail Drake, Kiriakou, and whistleblowers who exposed the illegal activity of our governments.
Turn your bloody TV off and stop drinking the anti-muslim propaganda you're being fed to try and turn you into a 'useful idiot'.
No, they just have guys break in, kidnap him, and then film them cutting off his head with a letter opener. All while talking about how great Allah is.
And they kill the women he raped for having sex outside of marriage.
Re: (Score:2)
Muslim is a religious choice
How is it a religious choice? You are born into it, and if you try to leave you are publicly executed. Where is the choice in that? It is fuckin cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
I almost forgot about the legacy of the illiterate pedophile. Look up the term thighing and see how far some go with it.
Re:Not a win (Score:5, Insightful)
Islam may indeed be another religious choice. But in it's present-day form, it's MUCH more radical than most others. Very few other modern religions still seek to impose their religious beliefs by force in entire COUNTRIES (and exclude the practice of other religions). Even radical Zionists in Israel and Mormons in Utah would draw the line at banning other religions in their countries outright, or in overriding secular civil law entirely with their batshit beliefs. There are an *increasing* number of Muslim countries (and, make no mistake, it IS increasing), where the general populace is all-too-ready to vote in Sharia Law and start burning churches the second they get the chance. And this is not a movement that is weakening in the modern world, it's actually STRENGTHENING.
There are still voices of moderation in Islam. But I'm no longer convinced that they are the majority, and they are CERTAINLY on the wane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are an *increasing* number of Muslim countries (and, make no mistake, it IS increasing), where the general populace is all-too-ready to vote in Sharia Law and start burning churches the second they get the chance. And this is not a movement that is weakening in the modern world, it's actually STRENGTHENING.
That's not true. Most Muslim countries are becoming less radicalised over time. Even in fairly hardcore places like Iran and Saudi Arabia there is quite a bit of movement, for example with women driving in defiance of the law and agitating for change. There are actually quite a lot of Christians living happily in Iran and Saudi Arabia too, without having their churches burned down.
Like Christianity before it, Islam is slowly dying as people become more educated. There are sporadic attempts in some places to
Re: (Score:2)
" overriding secular civil law entirely with their batshit beliefs."
Post offices in the US are required to be closed on Sundays because people would gather to talk at the post office instead of the church.
Trains in Israel are prohibited form running from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday (though you can get a Muslim taxi driver any day of the week).
"general populace is all-too-ready to vote in Sharia Law and start burning churches"
As opposed to places where they *already* burn mosques, or restrict
Re: (Score:2)
That said, there are some historical differences (largely unrelated to the actual theology of the religions involved) that have an impact:
Most notably,
Re: (Score:2)
First off, being a Muslim has nothing to do with screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like.
Muslim is a religious choice, and just like Christians or any other religion, there are those who are fanatical about it. They are dangerous, remember the holy crusades?
There are people who are fanatical who have nothing to do with religion at all, what group do you insult for them?
There's plenty of Muslims who live in Canada who are perfectly reasonable respectable people who are not violent who appreciate that you have your own way you live your life, and aren't coming to you to force you to change it, and just want to be respected for their way of life like any other religion.
For many many people being Muslim is NOT a choice; they are born into it. When they reach an age where they are rational enough to be able to decide whether they really want to be Muslim or not they are faced with the option of leaving Islam and being an apostate. The Koran specifies the death sentence for this 'crime'.
So no, unless you are a convert theres no real choice there.
Re:Not a win (Score:5, Insightful)
You've only just now realized that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden won beyond their wildest imaginations? We can fist bump about killing him and shouting "MURICA!! FUCK YEEEEAAH!" but even with Bush in front of his "Mission Accomplished" banner, we've still lost this fight big time by succumbing to the terrorist boogeyman to allow Big Brother to tuck us in at night.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand about Osama Bin Laden, he knew this is exactly what would happen. He knew all of the players involved and what they desired (he was trained and worked for them for years, after all) and all he had to do was give a catalyst to scare all of us to allow our own wolves to devour us. He may have been a monster but, he was a very intelligent man.
As far as what another post said, yes, we were already heading this way but, this sped up the clock by a few decades to bring this all here no
Re:Not a win (Score:5, Insightful)
If we start screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like we have not defeated the Muslims. We have become like the Muslims.
This sums it up right there. We are well on our way already.
The GCHQ head is clueless. They'll just do what they think is effective and safe. When they figured out we were using voice prints and cell phones to target air strikes, they stopped using cell phones.
The same thing will happen with Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Snapchat, or whatever else.
Another point, the ones using those things now are the dumb ones that are all talk, and not going to do much if anything effective. Worry about the ones that have hidden their messages that we aren't finding, or the ones that just meet in person or send coded snail mail letters. They don't need instructions, they need MONEY and TIME to get their goals done.
This is nothing more than yet another ploy to hook more surveillance into stuff that will be basically used to make the IRS more effective at targeting mild political opposites for harassment. The guys they need to bust in on with guns plot in mosques and living rooms in person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it IS his democratic right to tell her to do so.
Likewise, it IS his democratic right to expect her to comply.
Whether she actually complies or not, well, that's a question of HER democratic rights....
Note that my own opinion is that she should "comply" by macing him....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it IS his democratic right to tell her to do so.
Likewise, it IS his democratic right to expect her to comply.
Whether she actually complies or not, well, that's a question of HER democratic rights....
Note that my own opinion is that she should "comply" by macing him....
Preferably with an actual mace.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tar everyone with the brush of extremism.
How dare you point out his hypocrisy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
New studies suggest that terrorists breathe air.
Ban air!
News Flash - Breathing helps terrorists (Score:2)
If only they wouldn't breath our cause would be aided. Get over it gov'ment. Do your work the way your supposed to without invading our privacy and whining over every thing we do that keeps you honest and working for US.. the people. Encryptions protects us from you. We use social media because we like it... etc. etc. etc.
Meet the new boss... (Score:2)
.. same as the old boss
And remember people... (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot IS social media, which is why NSA and GCHQ created a fake Slashdot to hack into a Belgian Telecom company [ibtimes.com].
You dirty terrorists, you! Bad Slashdot! BAD!
Seriously, though, this is beyond belief and beyond the pale. Where do they get these morons? Most of these people are guilty of perjury [wikipedia.org] (at best) and outright conflict of interests [reuters.com] and gross violations of basic human rights [eff.org] at worst.
When is this going to stop and when are we going to get rid of these idiots? Where is Senator Franck Church when we need him? [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot IS social media, which is why NSA and GCHQ created a fake Slashdot to hack into a Belgian Telecom company [ibtimes.com].
You dirty terrorists, you! Bad Slashdot! BAD!
I might agree with you there if the fake /. was Beta clone that was full of Bennett's rambling "articles" interspersed with Nerval's dicevertisiments.
On the other hand I also might feel sorry for the terrorists for being exposed to something like that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As do civil liberties, privacy, and encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity, roads, mechanized farming, and every other technology that makes up our modern way of life.
That's a good argument for putting the spy chiefs in charge of those things too, then. Like it or not, roads have become the primary means of getting a terrorist to his target - the road people need to accept the new reality. One can never be too safe - try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget governments - Bin Laden received his initial funding and training from the CIA.
Every time a government agent points his finger, he's got 3 more pointing right back at himself.
Re: (Score:2)
what helps them the most is the weapons and training we provide them when we want their help... cause then they are freedom fighters.
Simple solution.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, he was complaining about companies like Google and Apple enabling encryption by default in their operating systems, as well as the social network stuff. Certainly encrypted devices are a problem for law enforcement, and no warrant will help them get in if the password is strong and the suspect refuses to divulge it.
I imagine the result will be the penalty of failing to disclose passwords will shoot up. Currently it is 2 years jail maximum, far less than you would get for terrorism or paedophilia
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's still utterly ridiculous. Encryption is intended to protect you from Bad Guys (whether they be governments or simple criminals). If it also makes law enforcement difficult, then so be it; our rights don't just vanish just to make their jobs easier.
Draconian punishments for refusing to give up passwords would just further reveal them to be freedom-hating scumbags. Hopefully courts in the US would recognize that as a violation of the constitution (other places, I'm not sure).
Re: (Score:2)
Water aids terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
J'accuse! (Score:2)
It's not only social media sites, it's the whole internet! Giving everyone a way to communicate with others makes it impossible to control the terrorists.
And not only the terrorists, also the pedofiles, the drug lords, all kinds of criminals can communicate using the internet.
We're in a slippery slope that ends in total chaos.
A slippery slope that started with the telephone.
Every technological advance beyond what we had at the end of the 19th century is inherently evil and has to be destroyed. It's so obvio
Re: (Score:2)
Also (Score:3)
This just in!
Also aiding Terrorists:
1. Air
2. Food
3. Water
4. Pillows
5. Gravity
6. The sun
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, terrorists are Real Men (tm). They don't need pillows.
Re: (Score:2)
Item 0 should be: Politicians making ridiculous claims about what aids terrorists.
question (Score:4, Funny)
Did Mr. Hannigan say "that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden"?
I'm still not sure yet.
A clever omission (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the process was broken, although giving LEO's more powers doesn't really address it. The big failure happened when individuals the CIA were watching and tracking entered the USA. Instead of bringing the FBI onboard and getting them to watch the terrorists, they kept it secret, hoping that the terrorists would leave the country where they could bust them for whatever it was they were planning. So now we get the department of homeland security which is supposed to handle all of it so that there aren't
Lions, tigers, and bears oh my (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that supporting tinpot dictators in these countries has probably been the #1 factor in creating these guys, with any #2 being such a distant second that it hardly counts. Yet it is these very same "security" agencies that have been patting themselves on the back as they trained and supported the secret police in all these countries. Using terms like "Realpolitik" to justify their actions.
Well sorry, you don't let the serial killer go just because he also runs an after-school program for the kids. Or even if he happens to own an oil well or two.
Plus it wouldn't be social media that the top terrorist dogs use. Those guys would be using couriers running around on motorcycles with cryptic notes. The only people that are using social media that these KGB types are scared of are new peaceful political movements that might organized to create a society that doesn't give them the free hand that they enjoy today and hope for tomorrow. Including movements in countries where they enjoy tight relationships with the corrupt evil regimes that have their boots on the throats of their people now.
Think about how much effort the American security services have spent going after Occupy NY whereas how little effort they have spent going after any police who violated the civil rights of those same protesters. That is the social media they seek to control.
Social media absolutely helps terrorists (Score:2)
There are actually a few other things that help terrorists;
Mobile phones, telephones, radio waves, email, speech, pens, paper, smoke signals...actually who is this idiot?
Instead of arresting social media site owners, forums users and people with "illegal thoughts"; let's arrest all the senior officials that new the GCHQ are spying on their own via the NSA and arrest senior NSA officials for knowingly spying on their own via the GCHQ.
You cannot talk to these people because they are "at war" like so man
It' not unique (Score:2)
Cars Aid Terrorsist (Score:3)
Sandwiches Aid Terrorists
Toothpaste Aid Terrorists
HD TVs Aid Terrorists
Sleep Aids Terrorists
Coffee Aids Terrorists
Money Aids Terrorists
...Another fact we all now know: Robert Hannigan is a fuckwit... and you can probably find a reason that he in some way also aids terrorists.
Really? (Score:2)
Copied directly from TFS:
Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed in the wake of the exposing of secret cables and documents collected by US and UK authorities by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
C'mon man. How can you screw up the summary that badly? There are only 3 damn sentences and we still can't avoid a dupe.
Slashdot: The only place you can have a dupe in a single summary.
Don't worry, you're safe here on slashdot! (Score:2)
Pot meets Kettle (Score:2)
However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us... Mr. Hannigan said that smartphone and other mobile technologies increased the opportunities for terrorist activity to be concealed...
I agree fully. Things such as social media and cell phones are priceless boons to those governments which aggressively meddle in the affairs of other nations while persistently spying on their own citizens. It's good to see Mr. Hannigan admitting on behalf of his country how "transformational" the latest technology has been for him and his masters.
People and countries that complain about the sword cutting both ways, should just stop living by the sword.
So do cars (Score:2)
Cars also help terrorists. Maybe we should consider restrictions on them too, to make sure they can't be used for terrorism. And guns help terrorists. I certainly don't see the Americans raising a fuss about that. Curiously, the UK doesn't seem to be raising a fuss about that either. Heck, western governments frequently help terrorists. Perhaps we should address that one first.
Sure it does, but it aids businesses more (Score:2)
so there's nothing to be done about it.
he's right (Score:3)
Dispite the sensationalistic headline, he's actually spot on:
"'However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us."
True. He's not saying social media is aiding terrorists. He says that terrorists use the same tools that normal people use, too.
Freedom Aids Terrorists (Score:3)
so let's get rid of it.
Re:Social media (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news:
Cars help terrorists: they use them as a means of transport. We should add kill switches and gps units to all cars so the goverment can track every individual car and stop it if needed.
Subway helps terrorists: They use it as a means of transport. We should force every person using it to identify and keep all this data on a database.
Houses help terrorists: They use them to hide and to stay warm and to plan new attacks. We should have a camera on every house connected to a government agency so we can track who is in the house and what is he doing.
Books help terrorists: They read them and get funny ideas. We should create a system where people would identify themselves before reading a book.
Also, this not only applies to terrorists. It also applies to child molesters, please think of the children.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention air. All terrorists breathe air (at least until they blow themselves up). Wait a second... I breathe air! Excuse me while I turn myself in as a potential terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
so we install cameras in every bedroom to see if they're fucking with condoms or not?
I mean, that's basically what it goes to. Government agencies having agents who have access to information about who fucks who and how they fuck, with no oversight. It's better than having cameras in the bedrooms since this way they'll get even people who aren't fucking at home but at love hotels etc.
and why they would be interested in that is that information gives power over many people, especially if they at the same ti
Original Article (Score:2)
Also, this not only applies to terrorists. It also applies to child molesters, please think of the children.
I found the original article
The web is a terrorist's command-and-control network of choice [ft.com]
I understand why [the private sector] have an uneasy relationship with governments. They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.
Yup, he rings that bell.
To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of human behaviour on the internet, it can seem that some technology companies are in denial about its misuse. I suspect most ordinary users of the internet are ahead of them: they have strong views on the ethics of companies, whether on taxation, child protection or privacy; they do not want the media platforms they use with their friends and families to facilitate murder or child abuse.
Three times in total.
Re:Social media (Score:4, Informative)
The UK has already banned any information which might be useful to a terrorist. Literally, thats what the law says.
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not.
I mean you would have a point if they actually followed it but if that was the case, we wouldn't have all the NSA spying, the IRS being used to stop dissent, or the post office with their own swat teams. In fact, a lot of things would be different if the constitution was followed and could actually help terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Root Access To Society Granted.
Would you like to A) Pass oppressive new laws that otherwise wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing?, B) Accumulate more power to yourself, eroding Democracy while claiming to protect it?, or C) Both at the same time?
Of course it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
The largest means of support for terrorist groups is the U.S. Dollar. Perhaps we should get rid of that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "we"? It looks to me like most people are voting solely based on hot button issues like abortion, and even worse, they're continuing to vote for Republicans and Democrats. The people who take a stand and refuse to vote for scumbags, as well as protest and donate to organizations like the EFF and ACLU, are few and far between.