\n
![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.rsoftsolution.com\/blog\/wp-content\/plugins\/RSSPoster_PRO\/cache\/6d3f5_screen-shot-2017-03-27-at-2-02-14-pm.png?w=640&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
Yesterday UK government ministers once again called for social media companies to do more to combat terrorism. \u201cThere should be no place for terrorists to hide,\u201d said\u00a0Home Secretary Amber Rudd, speaking on the BBC\u2019s Andrew Marr program<\/a>.<\/p>\n Rudd\u2019s\u00a0comments followed the terrorist attack In London last week, in which lone attacker Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians walking over Westminster bridge before\u00a0stabbing\u00a0a policeman to death outside parliament.<\/p>\n Press\u00a0reports<\/a>\u00a0of the police investigation have suggested Masood used the WhatsApp messaging app minutes before commencing the attack last Wednesday.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to make sure that organisations like WhatsApp, and there are plenty of others like that, don\u2019t provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other,\u201d Rudd told Marr.\u00a0<\/span>\u201cIt used to be that people would steam open envelopes or just listen in on phones when they wanted to find out what people were doing, legally, through warranty.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBut on this situation we need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted WhatsApp.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Rudd\u2019s comments echo an earlier statement,\u00a0made in January 2015<\/a>,\u00a0by then Prime Minister David Cameron, who argued there should not be any means of communication that \u201cin extremis\u201d cannot be read by the intelligence agencies.<\/p>\n Cameron\u2019s\u00a0comments followed the\u00a0January 2015 terror attacks in Paris in which islamic extremist gunmen killed\u00a0staff of\u00a0the\u00a0Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine and shoppers\u00a0at a Jewish supermarket.<\/p>\n Safe to say, it\u2019s become standard procedure for politicians to point the finger of blame at technology companies when a terror attack occurs\u00a0\u2014 most obviously as this allows governments to spread the blame for counterterrorism\u00a0failures.<\/p>\n Facebook, for instance, was\u00a0criticized after\u00a0a 2014 report<\/a>\u00a0by the UK Intelligence and Security Committee into the 2013 killing of solider Lee Rigby by two extremists who had very much been on the intelligence services\u2019 radar. Yet the parliamentary ISC concluded the only \u201cdecisive\u201d possibility for preventing the attack required the Internet company\u00a0to have pro-actively identified and reported the threat\u00a0\u2014 a suggestion that\u00a0effectively outsources responsibility for\u00a0counterterrorism to the commercial sector.<\/p>\n Writing in a national newspaper<\/a>\u00a0yesterday Rudd\u00a0also called for social media companies to do more to\u00a0tackle terrorism online.\u00a0<\/span>\u201cWe need the help of social media \u00adcompanies: the Googles, the Twitters, the Facebooks, of this world,\u201d she wrote. \u201cAnd the smaller ones, too \u2014 \u00adplatforms like Telegram, WordPress and Justpaste.it.\u201d<\/p>\n Rudd\u00a0also said<\/a>\u00a0Google, Facebook and Twitter had\u00a0been summoned to a meeting to discuss action over extremism, as well as\u00a0suggesting the government is considering including new proposals to make Internet giants take down hate videos quicker in a forthcoming counterterrorism strategy \u2014 which would appear to mirror a push in Germany. The government there proposed a new law earlier this month<\/a>\u00a0to require\u00a0social media firms to remove illegal hate speech faster.<\/p>\n So, whatever else it is, a terror attack is\u00a0a politically opportune moment for governments\u00a0to apply massively\u00a0visible public pressure onto a sector known for engineering workarounds to extant regulation \u2014 as a power play to\u00a0try to eke out greater cooperation going forward.<\/p>\n And US tech platform\u00a0giants\u00a0have long been under the public counterterrorism cosh in the UK\u00a0\u2014 with the then head of intelligence agency GCHQ arguing, back in 2014<\/a>, that their platforms had become the \u201ccommand-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals\u201d, and\u00a0calling for \u201ca\u00a0new deal between democratic governments and the technology companies in the area of protecting our citizens\u201d.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n As is typically the case when governments talk about encryption<\/a>, Rudd\u2019s comments to Marr are contradictory\u00a0\u2014 so on the one hand she\u2019s making the apparently timeless call<\/a> for tech firms to break encryption and backdoor their services. Yet when pressed on the specifics she also appears to claim she\u2019s not calling for that at all, telling Marr: \u201cWe don\u2019t want to open up, we don\u2019t want to go into the cloud and do all sorts of things like that, but we do want [technology companies] to recognise that they have a responsibility to engage with government, to engage with law enforcement agencies when there is a terrorist\u00a0situation.<\/p>\n \u201cWe would do it all through the carefully thought through, legally covered arrangements. But they cannot get away with saying \u2018we are in a different situation\u2019 \u2014 they are not.\u201d<\/p>\n So, really, the core of her demand\u00a0is closer\u00a0co-operation between tech firms and government. And the not so subtle subtext is: \u2018we\u2019d prefer you didn\u2019t use\u00a0end-to-end encryption by default\u2019.<\/p>\n After all, what better way to workaround e2e encryption than to pressurize companies not to pro-actively push its use in the first place\u2026 (So even if one potential target\u2019s messages are robustly\u00a0encrypted, the agencies could hope to find one of their contacts whose messages are still accessible.)<\/p>\n Rudd comment on encryption isn\u2019t about Investigatory Powers Act. It\u2019s politics, leveraging pressure to make default settings unencrypted.<\/p>\n \u2014 Eric King (@e3i5) March 27, 2017<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n A key\u00a0factor informing this political power play\u00a0is undoubtedly the huge popularity of some of the technology services being targeted. Messaging app WhatApp has more than a billion active users, for example.<\/p>\n Banning popular tech services would not only likely be\u00a0technically futile, but any attempt to outlaw mainstream networks would be tantamount to political suicide \u2014 hence governments feeling the need to wage a hearts and minds PR war every time there\u2019s another terrorist outrage. The mission is to try to put\u00a0tech firms\u00a0on the back foot by turning public opinion against\u00a0them. (Oftentimes, a goal\u00a0aided and abetted<\/a> by sections of the mainstream UK media, it must be said.)<\/p>\n In recent years, some tech companies with very large user-bases have also been shown to make high profile stances championing user privacy<\/a> \u2014 which inexorable sets them on a collision\u00a0course with governments\u2019 national security priorities.<\/p>\n Consider how Apple and WhatsApp have recently challenged law enforcement authorities\u2019 demands to weaken their security system and\/or access encrypted\u00a0data, for instance.<\/p>\n Apple most visibly in the case of the San Bernardino terrorist\u2019s locked iPhone<\/a> \u2014 where the Cupertino company resisted a demand by the FBI that it write a new version of its OS to weaken the security of the device so it could be unlocked. (In the event, the FBI paid a third party organization for a hacking tool that apparently enabled it to unlock the device.)<\/p>\n While\u00a0WhatsApp \u2014 aside from the fact the messaging giant\u00a0has rolled out end-to-end encryption across its entire platform, thereby vastly lowering the barrier to entry to the tech for mainstream consumers\u00a0\u2014 has continued resisting police demands for encrypted data, such as in Brazil, where the service has been blocked<\/a> several times as a result, on judges\u2019 orders.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in the UK, the legislative push in recent years has been to expand the investigatory\u00a0capabilities of domestic\u00a0intelligence agencies \u2014 with counterterrorism the broad-brush justification for this push to\u00a0normalize mass surveillance.<\/p>\n The current government rubberstamped<\/a>\u00a0the hugely controversial Investigatory Powers Act at the back end of last year \u2014 which puts intrusive powers that had been used previously, without necessary being avowed to parliament and authorized via an antiquated legislative patchwork, on a firmer legal footing \u2014 including cementing a series of so-called \u201cbulk\u201d (i.e. non-targeted) powers<\/a> at the heart of the UK surveillance state, such as\u00a0the ability to hack into multiple devices\/services under a single\u00a0warrant.<\/p>\n So the really big irony of Rudd\u2019s comments is that the government has already afforded itself\u00a0swingeing investigatory\u00a0powers \u2014 even<\/em>\u00a0including<\/em> the ability to require companies to decrypt data, limit the use of end-to-end encryption<\/a> and backdoor services<\/a>\u00a0on warranted request. (And that before you even consider how much\u00a0intel can profitably be gleaned by intelligence agencies looking at\u00a0metadata \u2014 which end-to-end encryption does not lock behind an impenetrable wall.)<\/p>\n Which begs the question why Rudd is\u00a0seemingly\u00a0asking tech companies for something her government has already legislated to be able to demand.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Part of this might\u00a0be down to\u00a0intelligence agencies being worried that\u00a0it\u2019s getting harder (and\/or more resource intensive) for them to prioritize\u00a0subjects of interest\u00a0because the more widespread use of end-to-end encryption means they can\u2019t as\u00a0easily access and read messages of potential suspects. Instead they might have to directly hack an individual\u2019s device, for instance, which they have legal powers to do should they obtain the necessary warrant.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s undoubtedly true that agencies\u2019\u00a0use of bulk collection methods means they are systematically amassing more and more data which needs to be sifted through to identify possible targets.<\/p>\n So the UK government might\u00a0be testing the water\u00a0to make a fresh case on the agencies\u2019 behalf \u2014 to push for\u00a0quashing the rise of\u00a0e2e encryption. (And it\u2019s clear that at least some sections of the Conservative party do not have the faintest idea of how\u00a0encryption works<\/a>.) But, well, good luck with that!<\/p>\n Public debate about triaging threats might be even harder than public debate around investigative capabilities. [which was pretty hard!]<\/p>\n \u2014 Eric King (@e3i5) March 27, 2017<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Either way, this is certainly\u00a0a PR war. And \u2014 perhaps most likely \u2014 one in which the UK government is\u00a0jockeying for position to\u00a0slap\u00a0social media companies with additional extremist-countering measures, as Rudd has hinted are in the works.<\/p>\n Something that, while controversial,\u00a0is likely to be less so\u00a0than trying to ban certain popular apps outright, or forcibly outlaw the use of\u00a0end-to-end encryption.<\/p>\n On taking action against extremist content online, Rudd\u00a0told Marr\u00a0the best people to solve the problem are\u00a0those \u201cwho understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up\u201d. Which suggests the government is considering asking for more pre-emptive screening and blocking of content. Ergo,\u00a0some form of keyword censoring.<\/p>\n One possible\u00a0scenario might be that when a user\u00a0tries\u00a0to post a tweet containing\u00a0a blacklisted keyword they\u00a0are\u00a0blocked from doing so until the\u00a0offending keyword is removed.<\/p>\n Security researcher, and former Facebook employee, Alec Muffett\u00a0wasted no time branding this\u00a0hashtag concept \u201cchilling\u201d censorship\u2026<\/p>\n Ignore the “necessary”; the Home Secretary is literally calling for certain hashtags or words to elicit censorship\/blocking on social media: pic.twitter.com\/4ISt0Fr5Br<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) March 27, 2017<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n But\u00a0mainstream users might well be a lot more supportive of proactive and visible action to try to suppress the spread of extremist material online (however misguided such an approach might be). The fact Rudd is even talking in these terms suggests the government thinks it\u2019s a PR battle they\u00a0could win.<\/p>\n We reached out to Google, Facebook and Twitter to ask for a response to Rudd\u2019s\u00a0comments. Google declined to comment, and Twitter had not responded to our\u00a0questions\u00a0at the time of writing.<\/p>\n Facebook provided a WhatsApp statement, in which\u00a0a spokesperson said\u00a0the\u00a0company\u00a0is \u201chorrified by the attack carried out in London earlier this week and are cooperating with law enforcement as they continue their investigations\u201d. But\u00a0did not immediately\u00a0provide a Facebook-specific response to being summoned by the UK\u00a0government for discussions about tackling online extremism.<\/p>\n The company\u00a0has recently been facing renewed\u00a0criticism in the UK for how it handles complaints relating to child safety<\/a>. As well as\u00a0ongoing concerns in multiple countries about how fake news<\/a> spreads across its platform. On the latter issue,\u00a0it\u2019s been working with third party fact checking organizations to flag disputed content in certain regions. While on the issue of illegal hate speech in Germany Facebook\u00a0has said it is increasing the number of people working on reviewing content in the country, and\u00a0claims<\/a> to be \u201ccommitted to working with the government and our partners to address this societal issue\u201d.<\/p>\n It seems highly\u00a0likely the social media giant\u00a0will soon have a fresh set of political demands\u00a0on its plate. And that \u2018humanitarian manifesto<\/a>\u2018 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg penned in February, in which he publicly grappled\u00a0with some of the societal concerns\u00a0the platform is sparking<\/a>, is already looking in need of an update.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Article source: http:\/\/feedproxy.google.com\/~r\/techcrunch\/social\/~3\/Zqe6QguQNE0\/<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yesterday UK government ministers once again called for social media companies to do more to combat terrorism. \u201cThere should be no place for terrorists to hide,\u201d said\u00a0Home Secretary Amber Rudd, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3],"tags":[10,7,14,15,6,12,11],"class_list":["post-4345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-latest-update","tag-computer-news","tag-downloads","tag-microsoft-download-news","tag-networking-updates","tag-technology-update","tag-wordpress-plugin-download","tag-wordpress-theme-download"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\u201cThey cannot get away with saying\u2026 \u201c<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
\u201d \u2026stop this stuff even being put up\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
\n