British Prime Minister calls for the internet to be regulated in wake of terrorist attacks

[midian182]

Internet companies have long been accused of not doing enough to quell the spread of online extremist content. Following the recent Manchester and London attacks, British Prime Minister Theresa May said the internet cannot be a “safe space” for terrorists, and called for international agreements to be introduced so the web can be regulated.

In the aftermath of the latest van and knife attack in London that saw seven people killed and dozens injured, May pointed the finger of blame at “big” internet firms.

“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet – and the big companies that provide internet-based services – provide,” May said. “We need to work with allied, democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism and terrorist planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.”

UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd echoed May's comments during a TV interview. She said tech companies must do more to remove extremist propaganda and recruitment material and limit the end-to-end encryption used by terrorists.

Rudd had previously called for weakened encryption following the Westminster attack last March. She met with senior executives from tech firms including Google, Facebook, and Twitter, and while a joint statement said they promised to “tackle this vital issue” of extremist material, there was no mention of encryption.

Both Google and Facebook have defended themselves following the Prime Minister’s recent comments, saying they are committed to fighting online terrorist activities. Twitter, which suspended over 600,000 terrorist accounts between 2015 and 2016, said "terrorist content has no place" on its site.

The argument to weaken end-to-end encryption in services such as WhatsApp has been around for a long time. It’s something security experts say would do more harm than good. After the 2015 Paris attacks, the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), which contains over 60 tech giants such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft, said it opposes “any policy actions or measures that would undermine encryption as an available and effective tool.”

While some say more could be done by the tech firms, many agree that admonishing sites like Facebook isn’t the answer.

“Blaming social media platforms is politically convenient but intellectually lazy,” tweeted Professor Peter Neumann, director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. “Most jihadists are now using end-to-end encrypted messenger platforms e.g. Telegram. This has not solved the problem, just made it different.”

Moreover, few people radicalised exclusively online. Blaming social media platforms is politically convenient but intellectually lazy 6/

— Peter R. Neumann (@PeterRNeumann) June 4, 2017

Ultimately, coming up with an international agreement for regulating the internet seems extremely unlikely. It’s worth noting that the UK already has some of the most intrusive surveillance powers in a democracy, thanks to the Snooper’s Charter.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/69591-british-prime-minister-calls-internet-regulated-wake-terrorist.html

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

UK would have had much better luck had they implemented a "travel ban". Trying to find and stop "extremism" online is like trying to kill 2,000 bees swarming around you.

 

[Burty117]

UK would have had much better luck had they implemented a "travel ban". Trying to find and stop "extremism" online is like trying to kill 2,000 bees swarming around you.

Agreed, first we should stop anyone that leaves the UK to join IS then try to come back! I didn't realize we let them back in!

 

[Uncle Al]

Actually, the PM would be wise to speak with the intelligence services of her country and her allies. Far more intelligence is gleaned from everyday traffic than she probably realizes. From all reports, their "open boarders" is the main cause of infiltration along with a level of tolerance that, while not necessarily wrong, currently invites every possible trouble maker in and free's them to do whatever they want. Stifling the internet is very much akin to suppression of free speech. This morning NPR reported that there has been a significant reduction of british police and other law enforcement, which no doubt heavily contributes to the problem, but least we forget ... it is impossible to stop every terrorist attack and that is the cost of living in a free world.

 

[davislane1]

How is regulating the internet going to fix this when knowing about the attack prior to the event achieved squat all?

Internet regulations are not the answers. Immigration bans and deportations are.

Just ask the terrible Islamopbobes in Japan, Poland, or Russia.

 

[MonsterZero]

This lady must not have ever heard of the dark web. She needs an education on how the internet works before jumping to dumb conclusions such as these.

 

[robb213]

Because regulating 7 billion people is entirely reasonable to request and just as easy to achieve.

/s

 

[psycros]

Actually, the PM would be wise to speak with the intelligence services of her country and her allies. Far more intelligence is gleaned from everyday traffic than she probably realizes. From all reports, their "open boarders" is the main cause of infiltration along with a level of tolerance that, while not necessarily wrong, currently invites every possible trouble maker in and free's them to do whatever they want. Stifling the internet is very much akin to suppression of free speech. This morning NPR reported that there has been a significant reduction of british police and other law enforcement, which no doubt heavily contributes to the problem, but least we forget ... it is impossible to stop every terrorist attack and that is the cost of living in a free world.

You can stop most of them simply by not allowing people coming from terrorist hot zones into your country, even if their natives who took a "holiday" to learn bomb-making. Anyone who returns from such an area needs to be subjected to the same vetting as immigrants from the Middle East - no, *stronger* vetting. As for home-grown radicals, that's mostly a matter of cracking down on the Islamic leaders in your midst who are openly promoting the death of your civilization. Nearly every native-born or long time resident Muslim who becomes a terrorist was first radicalized in a local mosque. How exactly does Europe expect to maintain its liberal values by allowing barbarism to fester in Islamic houses of worship? Why are Christians and non-believers who espouse even moderately conservative opinions vilified in the UK and EU while Muslims who scream for blood get a pass? This is cultural suicide on parade.

 

[davislane1]

Why are Christians and non-believers who espouse even moderately conservative opinions vilified in the UK and EU while Muslims who scream for blood get a pass? This is cultural suicide on parade.

Highly effective brain washing.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Actually, the PM would be wise to speak with the intelligence services of her country and her allies. Far more intelligence is gleaned from everyday traffic than she probably realizes. From all reports, their "open boarders" is the main cause of infiltration along with a level of tolerance that, while not necessarily wrong, currently invites every possible trouble maker in and free's them to do whatever they want. Stifling the internet is very much akin to suppression of free speech. This morning NPR reported that there has been a significant reduction of british police and other law enforcement, which no doubt heavily contributes to the problem, but least we forget ... it is impossible to stop every terrorist attack and that is the cost of living in a free world.

You can stop most of them simply by not allowing people coming from terrorist hot zones into your country, even if their natives who took a "holiday" to learn bomb-making. Anyone who returns from such an area needs to be subjected to the same vetting as immigrants from the Middle East - no, *stronger* vetting. As for home-grown radicals, that's mostly a matter of cracking down on the Islamic leaders in your midst who are openly promoting the death of your civilization. Nearly every native-born or long time resident Muslim who becomes a terrorist was first radicalized in a local mosque. How exactly does Europe expect to maintain its liberal values by allowing barbarism to fester in Islamic houses of worship? Why are Christians and non-believers who espouse even moderately conservative opinions vilified in the UK and EU while Muslims who scream for blood get a pass? This is cultural suicide on parade.

What if you were volunteering for the Red Cross? A UN humanitarian worker? Banning all travel from a certain area gets politically tricky pretty quickly.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

What if you were volunteering for the Red Cross? A UN humanitarian worker? Banning all travel from a certain area gets politically tricky pretty quickly.

It is very political, unfortunately people let it get political. There can be some exceptions, but extreme security precautions must be taken and unfortunately to come back into the country you'll have to go through a lot of checks. Some feel it is more important to let people travel freely than to keep their country and people safe. Now is not the time get all worked up over temporary travel restrictions. Stopping travel from countries with lots of terrorists is going to be one of the most effective methods at slowing down localized terrorist attacks. It just needs to be for a few years while our nations militaries work together to find and kill known terrorists. Once you get rid of most of them travel can be opened back up and then it is just a matter of strong, honest vigilance to find the rest that are hiding.

 

[andy06shake]

I hope ISIS get a hold her and do us all a solid.

The ***** will sink this nation, same with the rest of the Tory scum.

 

[davislane1]

What if you were volunteering for the Red Cross? A UN humanitarian worker? Banning all travel from a certain area gets politically tricky pretty quickly.

"Politically tricky" is preferable to having children blown up at concerts and throats slit on bridges.

 

[mbrowne5061]

"Politically tricky" is preferable to having children blown up at concerts and throats slit on bridges.

Politically tricky doesn't work for a country like the UK, they depend on import/export relationships to survive. It can also have consequences of further violence at a later date. Decisions made regarding communists and anarchists at the end of 19th century combined poorly with the political climate to lead with WWI. Treatment of Germans following WWI lead to WWII, and so on.

Its wiser to make the politically smart move than it is to make popular one. In the face of globalization, banning travel and the restricting the flow of information is not the smart move.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

Politically tricky doesn't work for a country like the UK, they depend on import/export relationships to survive. It can also have consequences of further violence at a later date. Decisions made regarding communists and anarchists at the end of 19th century combined poorly with the political climate to lead with WWI. Treatment of Germans following WWI lead to WWII, and so on.

Its wiser to make the politically smart move than it is to make popular one. In the face of globalization, banning travel and the restricting the flow of information is not the smart move.

Like US the ban should be temporary, with exemptions in place. Somehow I doubt there will be a huge effect on import/export relationships if UK temporarily banned travel from countries like Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. who have many terrorists organizing there.

 

[davislane1]

Politically tricky doesn't work for a country like the UK, they depend on import/export relationships to survive. It can also have consequences of further violence at a later date. Decisions made regarding communists and anarchists at the end of 19th century combined poorly with the political climate to lead with WWI. Treatment of Germans following WWI lead to WWII, and so on.

Its wiser to make the politically smart move than it is to make popular one. In the face of globalization, banning travel and the restricting the flow of information is not the smart move.

The politically smart move has imported hundreds of thousands of jihadists to the West. The real politically "smart" move is to turn them back at the gates. After a few more years of this nonsense by the self-identified enlightened, deportations and travel restrictions will be the moderate stance.

 

[lipe123]

UK would have had much better luck had they implemented a "travel ban". Trying to find and stop "extremism" online is like trying to kill 2,000 bees swarming around you.

You may not know this since you can enter the UK with just a passport, assuming you are from USA or similar country.
Anyone from middle east and Africa that just wants to fly through the UK needs a transit visa and anyone that wants to enter the country for whatever reason needs a visitor visa.
So the borders are FAR from open and in essence there is already a travel ban in place via the visa system.

The guy that killed all those people was born in the UK and had citizenship, how would any travel ban have helped?

They should instead investigate people that leave for dangerous countries and follow up on what they did in those countries or something like that.

 

[davislane1]

The guy that killed all those people was born in the UK and had citizenship, how would any travel ban have helped?

Denying his parents asylum would have solved that from the start.

They should instead investigate people that leave for dangerous countries and follow up on what they did in those countries or something like that.

You mean like they investigated and followed up on the most recent attacks in London? The one where they had boots on the ground in eight minutes because they had prepped for the attack ahead of time after learning about the plot?

Please, dude.

It's very simple. Don't let them (Muslims) in.

Works everywhere it's implemented.

 

[lipe123]

Denying his parents asylum would have solved that from the start.



You mean like they investigated and followed up on the most recent attacks in London? The one where they had boots on the ground in eight minutes because they had prepped for the attack ahead of time after learning about the plot?

Please, dude.

It's very simple. Don't let them (Muslims) in.

Works everywhere it's implemented.

You seriously think this guy was Muslim? dude you need to go meet some actual Muslims some time because you are just plain wrong.
This guy was about as Muslim as the KKK is Christian, or maybe the west borough baptist "church" that use religion as an excuse for hate crimes.

The leaders of the local Muslim community banned him from the mosk and informed the police on several occasions that he was a radical nut case and the police didn't do their job.

Getting all racist about "them vs us" is plain wrong and stupid.

 

[VitalyT]

Such a dumb idea. The people she is referring to are the very same who just yesterday were exchanging information on paper notes. You can shut down the entire internet, they will just go back to what they used to do.

Stricter border regulation is what's needed, and I mean f. severe. Plus deportations.

 

[davislane1]

You seriously think this guy was Muslim? dude you need to go meet some actual Muslims some time because you are just plain wrong.
This guy was about as Muslim as the KKK is Christian, or maybe the west borough baptist "church" that use religion as an excuse for hate crimes.

The leaders of the local Muslim community banned him from the mosk and informed the police on several occasions that he was a radical nut case and the police didn't do their job.

Getting all racist about "them vs us" is plain wrong and stupid.

The level of delusion and cuckery required to hold this belief with a straight face is terminal.

The only thing I will add is that this has nothing to do with race. It has to do with Islam. There are black Muslims, white Muslims, brown Muslims, and I am assuming an infinitesimally small number of yellow (Asian) Muslims as well. Race isn't the issue. The issue is a religion that spawns actual legions of barbarians intent to rape, murder, and torture unbelievers.

To compare this to Christian cults and political activists is, frankly, the highest possible demonstration of ignorance and poor education.

I'll end with this.

15 years ago the "extreme" position was wanting agencies like the TSA to stop prioritizing non-Muslims for security screening and to pull aside Middle Easterners instead. We were denounced as racists for this and told it would be intolerant. We said failing to do so would lead to bigger problems and more extreme positions.

Today, we are now calling for complete travel bans and deportations. This is a popular position, which grows more popular every time a jihadi takes scores of lives in the name of Allah. The longer government officials and their target demographics continue to ignore the civilizational war going on in the West, the more moderate and reasonable bans and deportations will seem in another 5 to 10 years, when the terrible intolerant bumble heads you so deride start supporting even more extreme measures and politicians who play to those feelings become more powerful.

Donald Trump wasn't a flook. Brexit wasn't a flook, either. What's coming next will make everything we're advocating for now positively moderate by comparison.

TL;DR version:

Neither the jihadis nor increasing numbers of the general population care about what is considered by pacifists to be racist. The only thing that matters in the real world is results, and the results of "tolerance" are neighborhoods that are no longer safe and a body count that grows by the day.

Sooner or later, people will dispense with the hashtags and vigils and start fighting back. And when they do, they aren't going to consult with Imams to figure out who the "real" Muslims are.

 

[Kenrick]

You can't stop terrorism if you are a conservative type of leader. You should be aggressive.

God bless the souls of those who were killed, I hope those who witnessed and survived these barbaric acts can learn how to forgive but NOT to forget and do something to save your country and future children. Everyone knows how to prevent this yet these infested leftists have already infiltrated the bureaucracy and brainwashing everyone's mind.

Build the wall!!!

 

[mcborge]

I hope ISIS get a hold her and do us all a solid.

The ***** will sink this nation, same with the rest of the Tory scum.

Agreed!

 

[ForgottenLegion]

UK would have had much better luck had they implemented a "travel ban". Trying to find and stop "extremism" online is like trying to kill 2,000 bees swarming around you.

Agreed, first we should stop anyone that leaves the UK to join IS then try to come back! I didn't realize we let them back in!

Give them a one way ticket on a faulty plane.
Letting them back in is an absolute joke. If you love Syria or whatever shitty country so much then bloody live there.

The police need to start soaking their weapons in pig blood. If they want to martyr themselves then they're not going to paradise.

 

[Arris]

This was our Home Secretary. Also the one who cut police forces by 32,000 in England. And it's "The internet's fault". Misdirection ahead of the UK general election.