SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As governments around the world face the ongoing threat of extremism, US ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says tech companies have a social "responsibility" to take better care of what appears on their platforms.
And he says companies should go as far as filtering their feeds and opening encryption access.
Speaking today at the National Press Club in Canberra, Australia, the head of the US intelligence community during the Obama administration said the issue was controversial, but Silicon Valley needed to play ball on national security.
"I do think there is a role to play here in some screening and filtering of what appears in social media," he said.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Former US Spy Chief Calls for 'Filtering' of Social Media
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 34 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
-- Elbert Hubbard
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:30AM (5 children)
Yes. Intent matters in law. Just as kiddie porn is not a 'medical documentary', so too 'War documentaries' that glorify murder and degenerate into snuff films are called simply 'snuff films'.
You want these videos shown, but also want the state to close its eyes and ears. Why?
And false positives? Youre complaining about false positives? Each #true# positive will provide the IP of a murderer or murderer wannabe engaging in trafficking stolen goods. Just that (plus international cooperation) is reason enough to do this.
Dont know what you think but the primary purpose of a state is to #protect# the innocent and the weak. Not 'resist all forms of censorship'.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:48AM (1 child)
It is the purpose of the citizens to resist all forms of censorship, not the government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @11:13PM
It is not.
Make a torture/snuff film featuring you or someone you love, and that 'duty' evaporates. You'd want it used to bring people to justice. Not as a recruiting tool.
Same deal with child porn.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:07AM (2 children)
Yes, I do think that punishing completely innocent people is a bad thing.
That's over-the-top and laughable.
The primary purpose of a state is to protect its citizens' rights. Violating fundamental rights like freedom of speech makes the situation worse, not better. It's especially bad for the government - which is supposed to protect our rights - to become the enemy of our liberties.
Censoring videos wouldn't do anything to protect anyone's rights, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @11:30PM (1 child)
We do this for child pornography. What makes purveyors of murder and torture porn so special?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @05:28AM
I don't think we should censor child pornography either. The first amendment does not permit any government censorship; our courts often simply do not follow the Constitution. You've been completely shut out and our goals are irreconcilable, authoritarian.