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

In the wake of a terror attack in the heart of London this week that left five dead, the UK government has turned its ire onto online companies – including Google and Facebook – for not doing enough to remove extremist webpages and other content from their services. The two online giants "can and must do more," said the Prime …

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's slippery sloop at best

      unlikely that will happen anytime soon

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's slippery sloop at best

      Better swab those decks then

      - Captain Pugwash

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: It's slippery sloop at best

        ... and Tom the cabin boy smiled and said nothing.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If a car can be used as a wmd, get ready to lose yours, a bit like your privacy.

    I'm glad the daily mail did the research about running people over because I would never have thought of that unless I saw a video on the internet telling me how to steer such a vehicle. tl:dr you can tell it's comic relief night at the daily fail because it never ends.

    Personally I still drive a shire horse on the canal to avoid getting on government watch lists as a terrorist/freedom fighter (I added that for fun and want to claim a free laptop)

    1. Alumoi Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      If a car can be used as a wmd, get ready to lose yours, a bit like your privacy.

      Why do you think modern cars come as standard with some kind of remote control equipment enabled and hard to disable by most people? Why do you think there's this sudden push to driverless cars?

      If your car can be disabled anytime the manufacturer/government wants and you can be locked in your car at the push of a button you can be easily 'detained for your own protection' every time you dare to think.

      1. Ivan Headache

        except that they will have to phone the car company, listen to a menu, press a button, listen to another menu press another button, get a "Your call is very important...." message then listen to part of Vivaldi's Four Seasons.

        By that time the 'terrorist' will have driven the length of Oxford street and mown down countless numbers.

      2. Tom Paine

        If you couldn't figure out half a dozen instant showstoppers with your movie plot threat scenario in the time it took you to compose your post, you must be a very, very fast typist.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. cantankerous swineherd

    Google's problem is that chillaxing with call me Dave no longer cuts the mustard.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They would solve three problems at once

    If Google and FB started some curating of content (which they will only do reluctantly as it costs money), it would help them in multiple ways:

    1 - they reduce the help to terrorists (the question there is where to draw the line - would Breitbart still be allowed?)

    2 - they could actively prevent ads from appearing near inappropriate content

    3 - they could clamp down on fake news and hate crime

    The problem: as far as I can tell they make good money on all of the above, so I am personally doubtful that that conflict of interest will be solved other than with some makeshift options that mainly appear to fix the issue but which will either get defunded soon or allowed to wither away.

    1. Chris Hance

      Re: They would solve three problems at once

      I'm a little lost on who "they" are.

      I was under the impression that "makeshift options that mainly appear to fix the issue but which will either get defunded soon or allowed to wither away" were collectiively called "legislation", and therefore the exclusive provenance of one's government.

      1. Tom Paine

        Re: They would solve three problems at once

        Perhaps because you haven't studied Government and Politics or similar subjects?

    2. hoola Silver badge

      Re: They would solve three problems at once

      And that is actually where all the problems stem from. They probably make a disproportionate amount of money from these types of material.

      Go to the biggest amount of traffic on the web, pornography in all its guises.

      As far as I am aware you do not get adverts for M&S underwear or McDonalds on the those site.......

      Then there is what is forced onto the Dark Web. This will be the same however what it does do is put that physical break in where the casual viewer will not bother. The real fanatic probably will but it is a lot more difficult.

    3. Tom Paine

      Re: They would solve three problems at once

      1 - they reduce the help to terrorists (the question there is where to draw the line - would Breitbart still be allowed?)

      No, the problem isn't Breitbart -- as they've been implicated in inciting and encouraging terrorism on multiple occasions, so it's obvious they should be blocked. No, the real problem is the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph. Really hard to write a law banning race or religious-based hate and incitement that wouldn't also catch those particularly repulsive turds in the sewer of the British press...

  5. Stuart Grout

    Extremist content or bait for extremists?

    Seems to me that the Security Services would be better off getting ISPs to provide IP or user data on anyone accessing such material. This would help focus resources people who my be preparing acts of terrorism.

    Come to think of it, it's probable that the Security Services are already using these tactics, despite the politicians making their noisy show of "doing something" while the effective work is going on quietly in the background.

  6. heyrick Silver badge

    "can and must do more,"

    Exactly. But unlike blaming Google and social media, how about realising that the nutjob was, once again, "known" to the spooks and had already been linked to extremism?

    How about, oh I dunno, instead of signing off on every idea to pillage citizen's privacy, the PM and HomeSec understand that the security agencies are clearly incapable of doing their job with their current level of staffing. Sort that out first.

    1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

      Re: "can and must do more,"

      At least Google and Facebook stopped him sharing MP3 files - Lord only knows what he would have done if he could have shared terrorist music and disco with others, The Daily Fail would have had a fit.

  7. PhilipN Silver badge

    For perspective - Siege of Sidney Street

    A disturbing melange of criminally-minded immigrants, termed revolutionaries, the armed response, close involvement on the part of the Government represented by the Home Secretary, to what today would inevitably be called terrorism. Not for the first time; nor the last.

    All more than 100 years ago. In London. The Home Secretary a young-ish Winston Churchill.

    Would be interesting to look at contemporaneous news reports, short of which I guess they ran the same gamut from stiff upper lip sangfroid to rabid and bloodthirsty bollocks.

    Come to think of it there wasn't much else back then apart from the print media.

  8. Pen-y-gors

    Daily Fail ?

    I'm impressed that the Daily Heil felt the need to search for a manual on how to use a car to hurt and kill people. I suspect that most people could work it out for themselves. Or possibly read the Fail 'news' stories over past years and see reports which give lots of useful hints and tips on how to do it. Does this mean that the Daily Fail can now be classified as a 'terrorist training manual' and can therefore be shut down and the Editor and Owner locked up in Belmarsh? Please? After all, freedom of the press is one thing, but not when they publish information that is of use to potential terrorists.

  9. Not also known as SC
    Facepalm

    Daily Mail - Hypocritical?

    According to NoScript, The Daily Mail's website runs Google scripts for advertising and I guess therefore revenue raising purposes. So while complaining that Google (indirectly) supports terrorism, they themselves are helping to bank roll Google by using their advertising services.

    1. Tom Paine

      Re: Daily Mail - Hypocritical?

      Ads syndicated by Goolge,, yes, and using Google Analytics (the web tracking bugs and whatnot. Fire up Wireshark one day and check out how much crap from third party sites a typical Fail page contains.

  10. sysconfig

    Two things they want

    1. They want to be seen to be doing something, anything.

    2. They want more control over what we can and cannot see. Even if it's done with best intentions (I doubt that), there's no way anybody can effecitvely control which website should or shouldn't be visible. No pattern is perfect: Country of origin? (Hey there Donald!) Keywords? (let's ban everything about cars or knives?)

    The UK Gov's wish (and that's all it is) answers to the demands of rags like the Daily Fail and their readers. But it's a futile attempt at best, and it's a very slippery slope.

    Also, unless UK Gov somehow manage a world-wide ban of certain sites on Google (and all other search engines), people with enough criminal energy will easily be able to work around it. So it achieves nothing. Meanwhile, all the false positives will affect Law Abiding Citizen. Another win for the "terrorists" (in quotes, because we use that word way too lightly and sometimes inappropriately).

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Two things they want

      As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        the road to hell is paved with good...

        ...inventions. FTFY.

        Computers, nuclear power, DDT, bird- and bat-mincers...

  11. scrubber
    Childcatcher

    Is the material dangerous?

    Can we expect a bunch of daily Mail journalists to be radicalised by viewing this material? Are they going on a killing spree after looking at these websites?

    Ridiculous? Then the material itself isn't dangerous unless looked at by someone who is already unhinged. Do we want to restrict what normal people can view by potential worst case scenarios if the mentally deranged look at it? Are we back at blaming and banning violent video games? Burning books?

    1. billse10

      Re: Is the material dangerous?

      "Is the material dangerous?"

      If by "the material", you mean the Daily Mail - absolutely.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Is the material dangerous?

        "If by "the material", you mean the Daily Mail - absolutely."

        I prefer Andrex!

        Coat. Those outside nettys can be chilly!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google is an index

    Why should they be responsible for the content of that index?

    For the terrorist related web sites out there, the government should be addressing the root cause and getting them removed.

    Why is shooting the messenger seen as some kind of success? Or is it just the mob mentality of the Daily Fail at work again?

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Google is an index

      I give this an upvote on the basis that liberty extended to the population in general will be abused by some, but is better than some of the alternatives. Corporations are not people, but they are legal constructs organized and operated by people for the benefit of their owners and operators, and broadly have liberty to pursue their goals, subject to legal constraints much the same as partnerships, proprietorships, and individuals.

      Addressing the root cause - terrorist web sites - may, however, be a bit beyond the reasonable capability of single governments, or governments generally, without bringing serious damage to the Internet as a globally accessible resource. Some input from Chinese people might inform here.

      1. Tom Paine

        Re: Google is an index

        It's almost as if the Daily Mail Group (DMG) and the rest of the scumsuckers had some sort of conflict of interest -- say, for instance, some sort of financial incentive to want to do them down.

        But that's ridiculous. Everyone knows Dacretrash is the epirome of the hard-bitten newshound, relentlessly pursuing the truth wherever it may lead. (Except for his proprietor being a French-resident tax exile and Dacre himself pocketing millions in EU farm subsidies, of course, because they don't count.)

        OH WAIT!!!!

        https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/26/dmgt-print-ads-daily-mail-mail-online-metro

  13. Paul

    Ban the Daily Mail, I went online to find out how to hate people, particularly foreigners, and everything I needed to learn was in the DM including encouragement!

  14. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Since Farceborg et all can swiftly take down nudity, breast-feeding, buskers playing copyrighted material I can't see why they are so slow at taking down terrorist pages. Unless the US social media companies are actually supporters of terrorism?

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

      because

      nudity and buskers playing copyrighted stuff are a direct threat to the USA and the loonies in charge over there, hence the quick takedowns

      But some poor bugger having his head cut off by a bunch of deluded fools is'nt not a threat, and in fact , can be used to justify ever higher military/police spending/intrusion by the self same loonies in charge............

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: because

        possibly an even simpler reason? because .. the copyright owners tell the site operators about things that are illegal, and mostly accept that it would be almost impossible for operators to do their own jobs (protecting their content) for them, and matching what is and isn't allowed in different legal jurisdictions? One man's murderous tract is another's call for freedom, after all. [There's a rather memorable BBC documentary about Niccolo Machiavelli, from around 1990, in which someone recounts a recent - at the time - conversation with a Catholic priest, who said Machiavelli was a "terrorist", something he very obviously was not.]

        If governments - or the Daily Fail editorial page - want things taken down, they have the legal powers they need right now. Identify it, issue a takedown request, and if necessary get warrant or a court order. The operators can respond to materials reported to them, but no-one should be surprised by (or criticise them for) false positives, or for taking down things that are perfectly legal in the UK but disliked by, for example, the government of Turkmenistan, because it crosses the line in that country.

        When it comes to the Daily Mail, don't expect online media companies to police things unless you also expect offline media or communications companies to also police things (after all, no-one has ever used personals or classifieds for disseminating materials, or put them in the post, have they?) On that count, I find the blatant sexism of the MailOnline extreme and the entire site should be taken down immediately.

    2. sysconfig

      Unless the US social media companies are actually supporters of terrorism?

      You don't have to go far back in time to find plenty of cases where the US, UK and others have made a sizeable amount of money by selling war machinery into countries which are now "evil" and supporting/hosting terrorists. In some cases you don't have to go back in time at all. The Saudi's are UK's biggest importer of weapons currently, for example, and as long as they keep fighting Yemen, they'll need more gear.

      So if our governments (via arms manufacturers' lobbying and tax collection) have no interest in having an entirely peaceful world, why would companies in such countries care much about it?

  15. Unbelievable!

    Censorship can kiss my grits.

    I'm coming to the stage of thinking where I have realised that nothing is possible without some kind of distant, overpaid, fuckwit in a pretencious job approving it or monitoring it.

    What happened to the natural order of things? Why do the masses have to lose their privacy ?

    It strikes me as obvious that the government(s) slurping of data hasn't helped anything other than monitor the masses of innocents. Why are governments putting 3rd parties in the firing line when the government(s) have equally ability to do perform monitoring and execution. Hell why do they need all our data if they want social media to do the sorting?

    i could continue on this rant.. the whole situation it makes me livid. You never see relaxing of laws..

    "yes, now we have something better to firm out grip on getting peoples data from social media. We are turning every data holding organisation into government employees.. and haha little people.. you're paying for it, thrice."

  16. Suricou Raven

    Simple solution:

    1. Wait for self-driving car tech to improve a little more. It's almost there.

    2. Mandate that all cars include, by law, a front-mounted camera that will halt the car if it's about to hit a pedestrian, and which cannot be turned off.

    3. Enjoy a new generation of drivers complaining that their car won't start because the garage is too dark and the camera thinks someone put tape over the lens.

    1. Kiwi

      Re: Simple solution:

      3. Enjoy a new generation of drivers complaining that their car won't start because the garage is too dark and the camera thinks someone put tape over the lens.

      I wonder how it'd respond if I was to, instead of tape, put a picture of an empty street over the lens - a street that in reality is filled with people? Or put a smartphone just in front of it - one which plays a video of the planned route that I filmed yesterday, knowing that today the street has been turned into a market and is filled with people. If someone was determined, how easily could such a system be fooled?

      Of course, even if it was mandated that all cars become driverless and all non-driverless cars be removed from the road, well I have enough knowledge and mechanical experience to build a chassis, I have the ability with some reference material to build various types of engine including one that could be powered by hydrogen, and I could build a small refinery to turn oil into petrol (not hard for a small one-off type of setup where quality only has to be just enough to work), use vegetable oil as a bio-diesel, or build a small plant that uses solar power to split water into oxygen and hydrogen - and slowly build it up over a few months. Or I could just shove some nails into a bit of 4x2 and have a smashing time... Serious injury is probably a lot more costly than a fatality after all.

      There are many simple things that could become a deadly weapon if abused. Most people have the intelligence to figure out how simple items could be used to hurt or kill. It's not rocket science! And even if it was, our libraries would have plenty of material on it!

  17. Noonoot

    History - repeating itself

    "This sort of shit, blowing up people, mowing people down in cars because of a religion didn't exist 15 years ago."

    Religion has always, and will always, be the forerunner behind the notion of terrorism. Then come politics. It doesn't have to be about blowing yourself up or mowing people down.

    To say that the idea of blowing up people (or mowing them down) didn't exist 15 years ago is an insult to the memory of those who have died at the hands of individuals and groups carrying out atrocities in the name of their religion.

    True, history shows us that it's predominantly groups that use religion as an excuse to terrororise innocent people. You can go as far back as you like, but the most formidable examples are: the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Sicarii, KKK, IRA. What about Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh? Whether it's bombs, torture, mass poisoning, or simply opening fire on innocent people, often it has been individuals representing a cult or ideal, to which their "leader" has then acknowledged it was done in the name of their fanatical organization.

    Cult or religious faction - to me there is no difference.

    1. Suricou Raven

      Re: History - repeating itself

      "This sort of shit, blowing up people, mowing people down in cars because of a religion didn't exist 15 years ago."

      Ah, we have young 'un here! Do the letters I-R-A mean anything to you? Their violence had both religious and political dimensions.

  18. ElDave

    But but but....

    ...a terror manual on how to use a car for mass murder...

    Perhaps ban driving lessons while they're at it.

    Long time reader... first time poster... evening all.

    1. hellsatan

      Re: But but but....

      What on Earth is a 'terror manual on how to use a car for mass murder'?:

      1: Get car.

      2: Run people over.

      Crap i've just written a terror manual. Daily Mail best not hear about this :/

      1. Suricou Raven

        Re: But but but....

        It might include a few useful common-sense suggestions, but nothing that a few minutes thinking wouldn't. Like the importance of renting a big, heavy vehicle, rather than trying to crush people in a smartcar.

  19. Tom Paine
    Mushroom

    Cui bono?

    What a remarkable coincidence that the sewer press should turn their flamethrowers of bourgeois ignorance and knee-jerk moral control-freakery on the very organisations that are putting them out of business by taking all their advertising revenue!

    Funny old world, isn't it?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like