[UK Home Secretary] Amber Rudd said technology companies were not doing enough to beat "the enemy" on the internet.
Ms Rudd is expected to tell companies that extremists should not be allowed to upload content at all.
"That's what we're really trying to achieve," she told the BBC.
Ms Rudd is meeting with representatives from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and others at a counter-terrorism forum in San Francisco.
Tuesday's summit is the first gathering of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, an organisation set up by the major companies in the wake of recent terror attacks.
[...] Ms Rudd said if the companies did not take it upon themselves to clamp down on the spread of extremist content, new legislation could be introduced.
"None of this material should be online. They need to take ownership over making sure it isn't," Ms Rudd told the BBC.
"It's governments that need to urge them to really take action so that we don't have to go down the road of legislation - and get them to do it on a voluntary but urgent basis.
"Legislation is always an alternative."
Source: Message encryption a problem - Rudd
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday August 04 2017, @12:56PM (19 children)
The government is making itself into the enemy.
Whatever restrictions they put up need to met with even greater push back. We need to unchain ourselves from the ISP and create mesh ad hoc networks that can't be cut off.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday August 04 2017, @02:34PM (13 children)
No, you've got that backward - the government (and their corporate sponsors) are the ones speaking. And as their avarice concentrates ever more wealth and power at the expense of the populace they're quite clear on who the enemy is - anyone who objects.
For now though they still have reason to fear us, and so they manufacture bogeymen to convince us to let them build and deploy the tools that will let them keep us safely "in our place" as they throw off the lingering chains of democracy that chafe against their ambition.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 04 2017, @03:15PM (6 children)
as they throw off the lingering chains of democracy that chafe against their ambition.
Seeing as that democracy gave us these people, it might not be a bad idea. As the man said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @04:45PM
No longer:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-22/china-slams-western-democracy-as-flawed-as-trump-takes-office [bloomberg.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/17/democracy-is-a-joke-says-china-just-look-at-donald-trump [theguardian.com]
;)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:02PM (4 children)
Right. And so the solution is clearly to remove our ability to remove them from office when they become too extreme to tolerate.
As another man said "Democracy is the worst form of government there is - except for all the others."
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:40PM (3 children)
A constitutional republic is much better than a democracy, as long as it's operating well.
I am definitely not holding up the USA as an example of this sort of thing "operating well." But the potential is there. A few constitutional fixes, a few hangings for treason, throw out the tax code for something actually fair, stop giving the superstitious special deals, toss about 95% of the federal laws (and the many unconstitutional state laws as well) and hey, we'd be on the right path.
Easy-peasy. Uh...
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:14PM (2 children)
You're splitting hairs, and incorrectly at that. A republic is one form of indirect democracy, and thus a strict subset of set of governments that qualify as democracies, all characterized by the philosophy that the right to govern arises from the governed themselves, rather than being bestowed by God/breeding/force of arms/etc.
If you wish to compare it to a direct democracy I'm tempted to agree in theory, except that I've seen precious little evidence of a republic having *ever* actually "operated well" for any length of time. Meanwhile there's essentially zero examples of modern attempts at democracy, and those few whose histories survived from antiquity seemed to actually work pretty well.
It leads me to seriously consider that the "dangers of democracy" may in fact be primarily propaganda by those who prefer to keep power concentrated so that it can be more easily corrupted.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:25PM (1 child)
Well, apparently you entirely missed what happens to minorities in the embrace of a "direct' democracy. It's not good. It's why both a constitution and well informed legislators are far superior to the heavy hand of the majority.
No, republic is a republic. The hair splitting is in calling it a democracy. Because it isn't one.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:55AM
That's indeed the danger often espoused - but when, exactly, has it ben a problem? When has a direct democracy even existed in recent history? Moreover, as the current situation with as Trump and the Teaparty so clearly demonstrate, a republic is not necessarily any proof against those dangers either.
And it most definitely *is* a form of democracy - that's where the whole "election" part comes in.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 04 2017, @03:21PM (5 children)
You still can't see [soylentnews.org] the problem? The corporation that is out of control here is the government of the UK. Amber Rudd has a position more powerful than CEO.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday August 04 2017, @11:00PM (1 child)
But apparently MS Rudd is somehow not in a position to pass a law indicating just exactly WHO should have the right to "upload content" and WHO should not.
Every time there is a terrorist act in the EU, we are told the suspects were already known to the police, and already on watch lists. Yet inspite of that, they had the freedom to plan and carryout large scale operations crossing boarders with cars full of weapons, and post anything they want.
But somehow Google and Facebook are responsible.
And Google and Facebook should police these terrorists who can't be managed by the government, can't be named, can't be questioned, can't be deported, and are for all intents and purposes model citizens, mostly living on the dole.
For a powerful person she seems reduced to bluff and bluster. I suspect she't also bluff and bluster about Multi-billion dollar fines of Google and Facebook actually took matters into their own hands and created lists of terrorists to watch.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 04 2017, @11:33PM
CEOs aren't either. And Rudd's default political connections are more than ample to introduce such legislation and influence its passage without the expenditure of bribes.
I think this is another indication of the relative power of the position. There's a real risk she may be able to get such laws passed, if she doesn't get what she wants now. A CEO couldn't make such a threat because it wouldn't be remotely credible. OTOH, the threat is somewhat credible in her situation. She can at least try at little consequence to herself or her faction because the public is funding her threats. But that would cost resources of these businesses to defend against.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:13PM (2 children)
Governments are small fry in today's world. You are right that money is not the only form of power, but it usually pools around the more subtle forms. Even the corporations per se are often not the problem, but they dance to the will of the handful of people who control most of their stock. It's those few hundred people on the planet, most of whom stay far from the public spotlight, that are the "power behind the throne".
And those people seem to prefer working indirectly through corporations more than directly through governments - presumably because they're subjected to far less scrutiny that way. After all most of the families have held on to that power even through the often-violent overthrow of the monarchy's, etc. that they sponsored in the past. The secret to holding power in the long term seems to be making sure you're hiding behind a few layers of fall-guys to absorb the wrath of the proletariat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 07 2017, @02:46AM (1 child)
My apologies but when you started speaking of governments and their "corporate sponsors", I had the impression that you were speaking of businesses as the true power and thus a thing to oppose. But now, we're to a small hidden elite who can pull strings via government or business at the least. My point here is that curbing the power of corporations, which seems a commonly desired thing here, wouldn't have any effect on this hidden elite who controls things in so many ways. So what is the point of speaking of corporate sponsors when they're not really corporate?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:01PM
I believe it would help, in two ways: Firstly it would force the elites to come further out of the shadows to exert their influence - something they show a marked (and probably wise) reluctance to do. It might not dramatically reduce their influence, but every little bit helps - this battle has been going on for millenia, we're not going to win it overnight.
Secondly, and perhaps more satisfyingly, it would dramatically reduce the "incidental corruption" that gets exerted through the same channels - A great deal of the corruption flowing from any given corporation is in fact only in the business interests of that corporation and of only passing if any interest to the elite behind them.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday August 04 2017, @02:40PM (3 children)
This is the the wrong approach, the correct response against tyrannical acts is to fight back against them. A state hostile to it's citizens can keep outlawing freedom until no form of safe communication can occur, regardless of how sophisticated your means might be. Technology is a great supplement to information security, but it cannot protect you from a $5 wrench.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 04 2017, @03:10PM (1 child)
... guess I'll just have to buy a bigger wrench
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday August 04 2017, @06:21PM
You will find that you are limited to a certain size wrench for the stated budget. Perhaps check the used wrench market...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:54AM
Gun control shitstorm in 3, 2, 1...
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Friday August 04 2017, @02:56PM
Like the Serval Mesh [servalproject.org]?
(Score: 2, Funny) by slap on Friday August 04 2017, @01:44PM (4 children)
Sometimes you just can't fix stupid.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 04 2017, @02:16PM (2 children)
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Friday August 04 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)
But you can sometimes fix ignorant. Sadly, many use the two interchangeably yet the difference is quite substantial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @01:06AM
I don't think I've ever met anybody ignorant who's been interested in having their ignorance fixed.
But I live in a pretty conservative part of the USA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @03:57PM
Yes you can, but it takes violence.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Friday August 04 2017, @01:49PM (4 children)
That, right there, is the crux of the pushback on internet censorship. If we give the government the power to censor "the enemy," then we simultaneously give them the power to define who "the enemy" is.
Imagine (for example) Donald Trump with the ability to make stories about the Russia investigation go away with the push of a button as if they'd never existed. Or imagine during the Civil Rights era the ability to suppress stories that were sympathetic to marchers but not ones that claimed they were criminals. That's how the internet in China works, and it is a system to be abhorred, not admired and emulated.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 04 2017, @02:18PM
"After the meeting, the companies reported they met the enemy: it is us."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @02:21PM
The Crippled God scattered some seeds onto the brazier's coals. Popping sounds, then more smoke. 'Peace. Warm yourself, warrior, while I tell you of peace. History is unerring, and even the least observant mortal can be made to understand, through innumerable repetition. Do you see peace as little more than the absence of war? Perhaps, on a surface level, it is just that. But let me describe the characteristics of peace, my young friend. A pervasive dulling of the senses, a decadence afflicting the culture, evinced by a growing obsession with low entertainment. The virtues of extremity – honour, loyalty, sacrifice – are lifted high as shoddy icons, currency for the cheapest of labours. The longer peace lasts, the more those words are used, and the weaker they become. Sentimentality pervades daily life. All becomes a mockery of itself, and the spirit grows ... restless.'
The Crippled God paused, breath rasping. 'Is this a singular pessimism? Allow me to continue with a description of what follows a period of peace. Old warriors sit in taverns, telling tales of vigorous youth, their pasts when all things were simpler, clearer cut. They are not blind to the decay all around them, are not immune to the loss of respect for themselves, for all that they gave for their king, their land, their fellow citizens.
'The young must not be abandoned to forgetfulness. There are always enemies beyond the borders, and if none exist in truth, then one must be fashioned. Old crimes dug out of the indifferent earth. Slights and open insults, or the rumours thereof. A suddenly perceived threat where none existed before. The reasons matter not – what matters is that war is fashioned from peace, and once the journey is begun, an irresistible momentum is born.
'The old warriors are satisfied. The young are on fire with zeal. The king fears yet is relieved of domestic pressures. The army draws its oil and whetstone. Forges blast with molten iron, the anvils ring like temple bells. Grain-sellers and armourers and clothiers and horse-sellers and countless other suppliers smile with the pleasure of impending wealth. A new energy has gripped the kingdom, and those few voices raised in objection are quickly silenced. Charges of treason and summary execution soon persuade the doubters.'
The Crippled God spread his hands. 'Peace, my young warrior, is born of relief, endured in exhaustion, and dies with false remembrance. False? Ah, perhaps I am too cynical. Too old, witness to far too much. Do honour, loyalty and sacrifice truly exist? Are such virtues born only from extremity? What transforms them into empty words, words devalued by their overuse? What are the rules of the economy of the spirit, that civilization repeatedly twists and mocks?'
- Steven Erikson
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday August 04 2017, @03:00PM (1 child)
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
From the point of view of those with power, the goal is to control what the masses think so they will do what you want them to do. To control what the masses think, you need to control the information they get (this concept goes back to at least Orwell). The previous methods of large-scale communication (newspapers, TV, radio) were all broadcast-model, which is to say a few institutions come up with everything that a lot of people get to read or hear about what's going on in the world, and that makes it easy to control because you compromise those few institutions and you're home free. By contrast, the Internet is fundamentally a peer-to-peer model, which makes that difficult because absolutely anybody can put ideas out there for at least a few hundred people to read.
And to give an idea as to the effects of all this, consider that the in the 2016 election, approximately 1/4 of Democratic primary voters didn't know who Bernie Sanders was prior to casting their vote. And it wasn't because they weren't trying to get informed about things, it's that their sources of political information (broadcast TV, radio, many mainstream newspapers) did their best to pretend he didn't exist or if he did exist then he wasn't worthy of any serious attention. Those that used the Internet extensively were the ones most able to find out who all the candidates were, learn about them, and make their decision based on information rather than ignorance. From the point of view of the powers-that-be, the problem wasn't that 1/4 of Democratic primary voters couldn't make an informed choice, but that 3/4 could.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Friday August 04 2017, @03:34PM
This goes back to the dawn of human kind. Information is the key to control. What do you think the church has been doing? What do you think the rulers of past have been doing? The history books are packed with examples of how the ruling classes controlled the flow of information (even plenty prehistoric examples are available). For as much development we have been through, the basic dynamics stay the same.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @03:32PM
That seems quite extremist to me. Maybe Ms Rudd should be banned from speaking ever again.
Ms Rudd should take ownership of everything people shout at her on the streets, during speeches, at the protests... After all, if she didn't support their message, she wouldn't let them say it.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday August 04 2017, @05:17PM
Kinda looking like the terrorists have already won?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @06:20PM (2 children)
How is terrorism distinguished from free-speech?
Isn't it subjective?
Who gets to decide?
Do they review and update their past decisions for changes in policy, snd as views change over time?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @06:34PM
What are you talking about? We've always been at war with Eastasia. Our views never need to change with time because our views are righteous and always have been. Why would we believe something that is not righteous? Don't you love Big Brother and everything he's done for us?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @08:11PM
We're talking about the UK, no freedom of speech there. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday August 04 2017, @06:26PM
Anyone else remember this from "Alpha Centauri"?
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against
tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with
freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide
into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
I've used a paraphrase of this as my sig for something like 16 years, and watched it become more appropriate every year.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."