Some tech firms being 'friendly to terrorists' says UK police chief

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/uk-britain-security-tech-idUKKBN0NC1HX20150421

by randomname2 • 11 years ago

61 55 11 years ago

uk.reuters.com

abalos• 11 years ago

So it sounds like "being friendly to terrorists" is actually code for securing user data and ensuring privacy. Yes, it's possible that terrorists could use these services. However, I don't think the global population should give up liberty and privacy for the negligible amount of safety that removing this encryption would provide.

NoCowLevel• 11 years ago

"It[technology] can be set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them ... and creates challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that."

"We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and centre of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."

-- Unsurprisingly, the main argument here is that creating more surveillance-proof software is essentially the same as being friendly with terrorists. I beg to differ on that.

Squarel• 11 years ago

exactly. It is the equivalent of "You made doors with extra locks built in, this makes it harder for us to break down criminals doors."

Lancey• 11 years ago

Daily reminder that "terrorist" is a code word for "did something the government doesn't like".

coralreef• 11 years ago

It would seem that any constitution or right to privacy is also friendly to terrorists.

wesleytodd• 11 years ago

This would make a great Onion article, "4th amendment found to be pro-terrorism"

TeMPOraL• 11 years ago

"Officials have found that John Doe rightfully exercised his 4th amendment rights and immediately charged him with terrorism."

ams6110• 11 years ago

Of course the quote about trading liberty for security comes to mind.

Silhouette• 11 years ago

This is a typical biased perspective from someone whose job is to deal with the worst of humanity every day. It seems more realistic to assume that the threat from terrorism is very small, and there are other threats that are much greater. Those include threats that good security and privacy technology help to mitigate. They also include threats from which strong civil liberties protect us.

So no, preventing technology from being exploited by bad people should not be "front and centre" of its creators' thinking. That attitude just leads to never building useful things. Should we also stop building good quality roads, because being able to drive faster is friendly to bank robbers? Should we abolish cash, because being able to transact quickly and anonymously is friendly to fraudsters?

marcosdumay• 11 years ago

This is a typical biased perspective from someone whose job is to deal with the worst of humanity every day.

And this is giving too much credence for people that were already caught abusing their powers.

No, evidence is that those people are not biased. They have a clear view of their goals, and they are trying to keep the population terrorized enabling them to gather more of government's power. They are terrorists themselves, using terror to enable a coup.

p01926• 11 years ago

"we need [tech firms to do] everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists"

Such absolutism is foolish. The only way to guarantee technology cannot be used by terrorists is to never invent any technology. In the real world we need to offset the tiny benefits to an extreme minority of bogeymen against the enormous benefits to typical consumers.

SeanDav• 11 years ago

I am surprised he did not also try for the paedophile angle. Those are the 2 old chestnuts always pulled out to justify government/police surveillance.

Meanwhile, back in the UK, government is using terrorist introduced legislation to spy on people overfilling their garbage bins....

dazc2• 11 years ago

"Meanwhile, back in the UK, government is using terrorist introduced legislation to spy on people overfilling their garbage bins...."

Which would be very funny if it were not true.

irixusr• 11 years ago

"Which would be very funny if it were not true."

Sounds like a great story to share. What's happening in the UK with garbage and surveillance?

a3n3• 11 years ago

"Think of the bins!"

TheOtherHobbes• 11 years ago

Considering the growing public evidence of really nasty paedophile networks in and around Westminster, it's not the bins we should be worrying about.

beaknit• 11 years ago

Dang! Are they helping paedophiles too??

Please read all my email because I want to keep all the children safe!

madaxe_again• 11 years ago

The lock on Mr Rowley's front door is friendly to terrorists, as it prevents the security services from legally entering his unlocked property without a warrant. You never know what he might be hiding!

Perhaps he should do an open house, in the nude. Only then can we be safe from this potential predator. He locks his door! He must be hiding something sinister. The evidence - his use of a technology to restrict access to information about his self - points to a guilty conscience.

Arubis• 11 years ago

"We will continue persecuting you until you trust us!"

Really, this feels like a large-scale version of a spouse, caught cheating, refusing to admit any wrongdoing and then getting ripshit about not feeling trusted.

rm_-rf_slash• 11 years ago

Presumably this is the kind of boldfaced rhetoric meant to inflame the "if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" crowd.

stegosaurus• 11 years ago

I have no obligation to help the security services, or the police, or any other authority.

If my neighbour performs an illegal action, I will not report him unless I believe the action to merit punishment.

I do not believe secure communications are bad and therefore I will not aid in their destruction.

Simple.

fredkbloggs2• 11 years ago

As long as there are police, they'll be saying things like this to justify their demands for ever more power. It's in their nature. If you don't want to hear it, you'll have to get rid of them. Otherwise there's really nothing for it, and certainly no point in offering any kind of substantive response. The viper's nature is to bite; one does not attempt to educate it into peaceful coexistence but opts instead for avoidance or extermination.

kbenson6• 11 years ago

The police are like an aggressive guard dog. The aggressive nature is what what makes it a good guard dog, but occasionally that aggression turns back on those it's supposed to protect. It's important as the owner of this beast to keep it on a short leash, redirect it as needed, and chastise it when it's been bad.

The police don't want power for power's sake, they really do want it to do their job better. Unfortunately, they lose track of the fact their job is ultimately to uphold the laws and our way of life by aggressively pursuing the short-term goal of reducing immediate threats. The police are a force for good, and we are better off for their presence, but like the guard dog above, they require attention to keep inline.

droopyEyelids2• 11 years ago

Your analogy sort of falls apart because the 'owner of the guard dog' can easily want power for power's sake.

wahsd• 11 years ago

Nice./s Next stage of terrorism infection is starting to set in; metastasis of turning on one's own. As someone with a more classic understanding of terrorism, it is both amazing and chilling seeing the social pathogen injected on 9/11 coursing through the "Anglo-Saxon" west.

Nursie3• 11 years ago

> "It can be set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them ... and creates challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that."

If you're making tech that is not creating challenges for law-enforcement, in light of all we know now, you're doing it wrong.

droopyEyelids2• 11 years ago

Sort of- if you care about liberty and freedom and all those enlightenment ideals.

Let's not forget there are people who enjoy increasing their power, tracking political enemies, exercising authority over other people, and all other forms of winning-at-other's-expense.

mercurial• 11 years ago

If one thing is "friendly to terrorists", that's cranking up the panopticon. Maybe M. Rowley should turn himself in and get an appointment in room 101.

allemagne3• 11 years ago

There's been an awful lot said about the philosophy of "freedom vs security" in these comments, but it seems to me that the disconnect tech people feel with law enforcement is at least equally due to a technical gap. In the spirit of "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," I'd imagine that if those making policy decisions understood exactly what it would take to make the internet completely or even significantly transparent to intelligence agencies they would be less comfortable leading the crusade against encryption in the name of combating terrorism and pedophilia.

Nursie3• 11 years ago

Those making policy decisions will always listen to the spooks over the people and they have an interest in saying they were tough on terror/criminals/paedophiles/drugs/whatever so I reckon that's probably wishful thinking...

allemagne3• 11 years ago

Paranoia is always influential, but it's not all-powerful and it's not valued over everything else like you imply. Reality, and education about that reality, is also very influential. That's not wishful thinking. Look at cannabis legalization and gay marriage.

JupiterMoon3• 11 years ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"

Some might attribute that soundbite to malice rather than stupidity...

They have a very clear idea what they want. They want central keyholding authorities with master keys that they can use... This could then be used to keep the banking system safe enough (NB safe enough rather than safe) whilst allowing no private communications.

allemagne3• 11 years ago

It's a good point that this vision they have is specific and technical to some extent. But it's also not very well thought out from the perspective of an elected official and the general public (their bosses, even if we want to go all the way to the level of an inherent social contract).

aburan28• 11 years ago

What are these agencies/governments doing? They say that companies are friendly to terrorists and expect what reaction? If you want cooperation you need mutual respect and the UK/US government are acting out of line.

AlexandrB• 11 years ago

They're not trying to win over the companies, they're trying to put pressure on them by convincing the public that the companies are harming the public's safety.

a3n3• 11 years ago

They're not looking for trust with companies. They're manipulating public thought so the next wave of laws won't be opposed by any significant percentage of the population. "Oh, terrorism you say? Oh, well ... OK, I guess. You know what's best."

If they were serious, they'd name and shame the supposed terrorist friendly companies, and encourage the public not to do business with them.

This is no different from Joe McCarthy's list of government employees who were communists, which he always waved and never shared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

fennecfoxen• 11 years ago

I love the stock photo and its caption.

"An illustration picture shows a projection of binary code on a man holding a laptop computer, in an office in Warsaw June 24, 2013."

omg h4x0rz

JupiterMoon3• 11 years ago

And the original organisation designated as terrorist by the UK government was? (Hint you'll probably be a supporter of their motives.)

JupiterMoon3• 11 years ago

The answer is those that were campaigning for women to get the vote.

a3n3• 11 years ago

Mark Rowley, the national police lead for counter-terrorism, said companies needed to think about their "corporate social responsibility" in creating products that made it hard for the authorities to access material during investigations.

And law enforcement has to think about the distrust of government by its supposed citizen/masters that it's causing by indiscriminately spying on everyone. Snowden isn't the problem. The problem is that there was something worth exposing.

If spies and law enforcement worked indisputable within the bounds of expectation and law (and not merely within law that they essentially drafted, for their convenience), rather than in the shadows, then I'm quite sure that businesses and others would mostly have no problem working with them.

If I know that you're going to be honest, I have no reason to protect myself against you specifically. If not, you're just another threat.

Come back into the fold, law enforcement. We miss you.

venomsnake• 11 years ago

Privacy vs having 1/1000000 chance of dying from terror act. I know which I choose. I suppose that is with those guys - they know how tiny and useless their job is.

darkarmani• 11 years ago

Mark Rowley, the national police lead for counter-terrorism, said companies needed to think about their "corporate social responsibility" in creating products that made it hard for the authorities to access material during investigations.

Doesn't it also make it hard for terrorists to access the authorities' materials as well? A tool is a tool.

Rmilb• 11 years ago

"Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement..." I'm pretty sure that the governments are the parties responsible for this environment.

Some tech firms being 'friendly to terrorists' says UK police chief

Related Stories