After London attack, UK gov lays into Facebook, Google for not killing extremist terror pages

Re: Letter to Google.

I think they are trying to deflect attention from this particular terrorist's violent past and arrests. But the fact is: if this attack could have been prevented it would have been through police and government action - the warning signs were there.

Re: Distraction tactics - attack is the best form of defence

"Your terrorist is my Freedom Fighter."

I notice you have a down vote, probably for this line. It's a line that's true, but totally misunderstood by others on the internet.

This sort of shit, blowing up people, mowing people down in cars because of a religion didn't exist 15 years ago. But since 9/11 all we've had is countless wars. Invaded Afghanistan on a whim, invaded Iraq for oil under the guise of terrorism. It was said at the time that this would cause problems in the west. And it has. But it was ignored. For what reason, well draw your own conclusion.

The media doesn't help, because they know it sells papers or drives traffic to publish a story that gets you upset, gets you angry, but more importantly makes you afraid. The reality now that you could be murdered tomorrow by some terrorist fucking thick mental idiot resonates, you want all the information you can get to prevent you being a victim. There is some "murder porn" element to it too, a need to revel in the misery of others.

Plus, the media and Government like to point at someone who shouts some support of ISIS/ISL/A.N.Other Terrorist Organisation immediately means it's the act of that group. Bullshit. If I run on to the pitch at Wembley during the FA Cup final and kick a ball in the back of Arsenal's net, it doesn't mean I've scored a goal for Man Utd. Those organisations want this labelling by the authorities to happen because it gives them credit. It legitimises what they do. It means they win by making your child who watches the 6pm news wet the bed from fear because of that link.

Fact is it's been 13 years since the last mass murder of people in the UK, and 5 are now dead. You have more chance of winning the lottery than being murdered by one of these scumbags. But people won't think like that. They'll see a fella with a beard, someone with a thick asian accent and a rucksack and think "Shit he's a terrorist I'm going to be murdered". The same shit happened to my parents in the 70's when the IRA were bombing pubs. The moment you opened your mouth and an irish accent came out you were immediately a terrorist with a penchant for plastic explosives.

Don't let the fear of something that might happen affect how you do things. Don't let the bastards drag you down - both these wankers murdering people and our own Government. Neither group want the best for you. They want to make you suffer.

But we won't let them. I know damn well neither of those bastards will make me suffer.

Re: Distraction tactics - attack is the best form of defence

The security forces knew about this guy

Well, they know about everyone who has a birth certificate, NI number, driver's license, criminal record and a passport. What of it?

but apparently we shouldn't blame them.

If you had kept tabs on how many court cases and convictions there have been of people planning things like this, and indeed noted the rarity of actual attacks, you'd realise that actually the security types are pretty good at what they do.

And apparently the security forces can't monitor t'interwebs and request takedowns, so GooBook will have to work out how to spot this stuff.

Well no, since there's billions of users, trillions of online items, and only a few thousand security types. Even if they could spend all day trawling the web, and even if Facebook did let them see inside every private group, etc. they'd never cover any more than a small fraction of it all.

Google and Facebook do have to spot this stuff. They rely too much on being able to say "it's not us that put it there". Well, it's their hard drives, and it's up to them whether or not they let anyone else in the world put dodgy shit on them anonymously. It's a lazy attitude to take, and one born out of commercial greed. Worse, and this is what really seems to have been the tipping point, their response time to notifications about illegal content is unacceptably slow. So slow that many suspect that it is a deliberate policy on their part to not be seen to take any responsibility for content whatsoever even if notified. The fact that they continue to profit from it is what makes it morally reprehensible.

Being free and none-too-fussy about who really lies behind a user account might be a great way to grow fast, but it's naive of them to think that they can run their businesses this way without attracting moral or legal responsibility somewhere down the line. In contrast, something like the old paid-for Compuserve model has many advantages; you know exactly who your customers are (the membership fee is drawn from a customer's credit card / direct debit / etc), and your customers know that ultimately they cannot hide their identity from enquiring policemen. Being traceable is probably the biggest deterrent to anyone thinking of posting some illegal material.

Put up a Great Firewall if you don't like the outside world.

No need. If Google and Facebook lose their revenue stream in Europe, they may as well stop offering the services. Twatter don't make any money anyway. Would that cause chaos in Europe? Perhaps for a while. Is it an opportunity for a domestic equivalent to finally get onto the playing field? Certainly.

Rapid Consequences?

Commercially this is a potential problem, for Google especially. They're under pressure from European legislators over their dominance of the Android platform. Cue a large fine. They've already copped a big fine in Europe for (Ii think) their search monopoly, they are (or were) under criminal investigation in France for tax evasion (they couldn't even play the Double Irish system properly), some of their shareholders were trying to sue them for corporate mismanagement of their business in Europe, That's before one starts counting the enormous sum of money they've wasted on self driving cars that aren't really. And now they've suddenly copping some pretty bad press over their profiting from extremist material and losing large clients fast. And that's before European governments go after their revenue stream by making their advertising customers criminally responsible for where their advertising money ends up (today's moral stance being taken by customers could become tomorrow's addition to laws on terrorist funding).

This is a pretty long list of problems for the company, and it can't be too long before some shareholder who really matters starts asking serious questions of the board like, "WTF is going on here guys?". For a company whose motto used to be "Don't be evil", they're pretty far from lilly-white goodness.

Re: Distraction tactics - attack is the best form of defence

Your terrorist is my Freedom Fighter.

Theoretically correct. Same as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

The issue with this idea is that you end up supporting a guy who buys 50+ spare trainer aircraft, gets the loaded with explosives and the only thing preventing him from using them for a suicide bomb mass run is that he has no pilots. He after that has to be taken out resulting in years of civil war and bloodshed.

Sound far fetched? I suggest looking up "Chechen Republic Air Force" - it is from a period predating Google Earth, but you can find the satellite photos if you search long enough. That is the real reason why the first Chechen war started by the way - Grozny was planned as a side show, the objective was take this out and make Hankala airbase unusable. Going back to the "Your terrorist is my Freedom Fighter" - we helped them buy the ex-Warsaw pact trainer aircraft across NATO countries from the Soviet block. Approx 50+ of them to be more exact.

Sounds resembling 9/11 original plan before the attackers replaced the trainer aircraft with hijacked airliners one month before execution (*)? Sure it does. Not surprising - some of Al Qaeda command contingent was in Chechnia those days (which did not prevent us training them under "Your terrorist is my Freedom Fighter" agenda).

So before using that logic, you need to think - will the "Freedom Fighter" turn around in 10 years and blow up our buses and rape your daughter.

_{So the conspiracy theorists which think that 9/11 is a black op gone wrong are not that far off. What they are missing is that it is a black op planned for another theater 6 years prior. Sponsored by us all the way too.}

You just drive at them

Tell that to the bellend who did just that and was (fortunately) so inept that he couldn't even hit anyone: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39380527

Thing is.. you don't need a manual to tell you how to use a car to kill people... you just drive at them.

Exactly. The weapon that kills more people than all others in Blighty. The weapon no government dare restrict, as they do even an innocent vegetable knife. The weapon not subject to security theatre like banning laptops on planes.

And above all, the weapon you can use without having to plan anything the police or spooks might seek to eavesdrop. Or procure anything that would bring you to their attention. Can we blame MI5 for failing to keep tabs on all drivers? Or even the subset of drivers with mental health problems as evidenced by a "road to Damascus" religious conversion?

Thing is.. you don't need a manual to tell you how to use a car to kill people... you just drive at them

Not entirely true. The pedestrian safety measures in a modern car like the ix40 as used in Westminster will render it unusable after the first few hits and/or fail to produce anything like the damage you are expecting. He hit 40+ people with the desire to kill and failed to kill all but two of them.

So you actually need a manual to chose the right car and/or exactly how to mow people down with it if you want to kill people, not put a few in hospital.

That manual most likely already exist. It is also clear that this gentleman did not have access to it. He would have chosen a different vehicle and driven it differently.

His case will be used for all it is worth by the Government to push repressive legislation despite the fact that he neither operated under instructions, nor had access to them via an encrypted channel. Rudd already started doing it.

Re: Hmmm

I rather suspect that they are in Northcliffe House, and advising those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Did it really take them 120 seconds? I thought journalists were supposed to be smart.

Tea, and or Friday reflection sauce.

Re: Hmmm

I've no love for Goobook or Faceool but I find these gubbernint demands somewhat concerning. Where does it end?

Who knows.

The UK has passed some pretty draconian laws in the past to deal with terrorism. Back around about the late 1980s / early 90s it became illegal for the media / press to report bomb scares on the London underground. It was a direct curtailment of the freedom of the press, but it did stop the IRA phoning in hoaxes. AFAIK internment was used in Northern Ireland, though that seemed to be a self defeating policy. Equally radical, though not draconian, was the whole idea of doing a deal (the Good Friday Agreement), which basically gave Adams / McGuinness / everyone else a way of going legit and building up a nice pension scheme.

So if a radical, draconian law has a good chance of being effective, looks good in the public eye, and catches the prevailing social mood, then so be it.

Before this week's attack the UK parliament criticised Google and Facebook for their attitudes, and withdrew their advertising custom. Suddenly it has become morally questionable to advertise on Google, and now there's been an attack and headlines like "Google, the Terrorist's Friend". If ever the government was thinking to pass emergency legislation to turn that moral obligation that everyone has suddenly grown into a lawful obligation (something like "Advertise on these blacklisted websites and we'll prosecute you"), now is a good time to do it.

Most governments are pretty motivated to do something about terrorism, they tend to lose general elections if they're seen to be too lax. Look at what happened in Spain just after the Madrid train bombings - the incumbent government lost the scheduled general election most unexpectedly, a consequence widely attributed to the political turmoil.

Basically I think the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter have got very little time to sort themselves out. One more attack of any sort anywhere in Europe attributable to someone radicalised online would start forcing governments hands, especially as they've publicly identified Google and Facebook and Twitter as being at fault on the issue.

Re: Hmmm

Who exactly are the extremists?

They're whoever we're not happy with. History is full of mission creep. One of today's obvious examples is the sexual Agenda: anyone who questions LGBT rights (or whatever the current label is) is extremist and dangerous.

We used to be a lot better when we (mostly) believed in Free Speech. Then came Blair, the Great Enemy of Enlightenment values, and we saw censorship in the ascendant. For a couple of years after 2010 I was optimistic about a rolling back of the police state, but sadly I was wrong.

A term you can still google is "Virgin Killer", for the story of when the Great Firewall came to public attention as Wikipedia got censored in the UK.

Re: the Guardian is polarizing

"Kieren McCarthy opined "Even the polarizing newspaper the Daily Mail"

Only a Corbynist would say the Daily Mail is polarizing. Many of us think the Guardian is polarizing."

Oh behave. The Daily Mail is simultaneously one of the (used to be the, not sure now) most viewed news websites in the world, while at the same time reviled by many millions in the UK. It has ran more sickening stories than any other newspaper in the UK, while at the same time (according to a journalist friend of mine) employing some of the best investigative journalists in the business.

So yes, polarizing.