\n
![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/rsoftsolution.com\/blog\/wp-content\/plugins\/RSSPoster_PRO\/cache\/676e7_whatsappcomplete2.png?w=640&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
The UK government has once again amped up its attacks on tech platforms\u2019 use of end-to-end encryption, and called<\/a> for International co-operation to regulate the Internet so that it cannot be used as a \u201csafe space\u201d for extremists to communicate and spread propaganda online.<\/p>\n The comments by UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, and Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, come in the wake of another domestic terrorist attack, the third since March, after a group of terrorists used a van to plow down pedestrians in London Bridge on Saturday evening, before going on a knife rampage attacking people in streets and bars.<\/p>\n Speaking outside Downing Street yesterday, May swung the finger of blame at \u201cbig\u201d Internet companies \u2014 criticizing platform giants for providing \u201csafe spaces\u201d for extremists to spread messages of hate online.<\/p>\n Early reports<\/a> have suggested the attackers may have used YouTube to access extremist videos.<\/p>\n \u201cWe cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet \u2013 and the big companies that provide internet-based services \u2013 provide,\u201d May said. \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n Speaking in an interview on ITV\u2019s Peston on Sunday program yesterday, UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd further fleshed out the prime minister\u2019s comments. She said the government wants to do more to stop the way young men are being \u201cgroomed\u201d into radicalization online \u2014 including getting tech companies to do more\u00a0to take down extremist material, and also to limit access to end-to-end encryption.<\/p>\n UK Home Secr Amber Rudd: Internet firms should “work with us to limit end to end encryption that is being used by terrorists” #Peston<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Joe Lynam BBC (@BBC_Joe_Lynam) June 4, 2017<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Rudd also attacked tech firms\u2019 use of encryption in the wake of the Westminster terror attack in March<\/a>, although the first round of meetings she held with Internet companies including Facebook, Google and Twitter in the wake of that earlier attack apparently focused on pushing for them to develop tech tools<\/a> to automatically identify extremist content and block it before it is widely disseminated.<\/p>\n The prime minister also made a push for international co-operation on online extremism during the G7 summit last month <\/a>\u2014 coming away with a joint statement to put pressure on tech firms to do more. \u201cWe want companies to develop tools to identify and remove harmful materials automatically,\u201d May said then.<\/p>\n Though it is far from clear whether this geopolitical push will translate into anything more than a few headlines \u2014 given tech firms are already using and developing tools for automating takedowns. And the G7 nations apparently did not ink any specific policy proposals \u2014 such as on co-ordinated fines for social media takedown failures.<\/p>\n On the extremist content front, pressure has certainly been growing<\/a> across Europe for tech platforms to do more \u2014 including proposals such as a draft law in Germany which does suggest\u00a0fines of up to\u00a0\u20ac50 million<\/a> for social media firms that fail to promptly takedown illegal hate speech, for example. While last month<\/a> a UK parliamentary committee urged the government to consider a similar approach \u2014 and UK ministers are apparently open to the idea<\/a>.<\/p>\n But the notion of the UK being able to secure international agreement on harmonizing content regulation online across borders seems entirely fanciful \u2014 given different legal regimes vis-a-vis free speech, with the US having constitutional protections for hate speech vs hate speech being illegal in certain European countries, for example.<\/p>\n Again, these comments in the immediate aftermath of an attack seem mostly aimed at diverting attention from tougher political questions \u2014 including over domestic police resourcing; over UK ally Saudi Arabia\u2019s financial support for extremism; and why known hate preachers were apparently allowed to continue broadcasting their message in the UK\u2026<\/p>\n Story on Theresa May and police cuts is red herring. Instead, should be asked how Anjem Choudary allowed to radicalise + recruit until 2015.<\/p>\n \u2014 Peter R. Neumann (@PeterRNeumann) June 5, 2017<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n \u201cBlaming social media platforms is politically convenient but intellectually lazy,\u201d tweeted<\/a> professor Peter Neumann, director of the\u00a0International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. \u201cMost jihadists are now using end-to-end encrypted messenger platforms e.g. Telegram. This has not solved problem, just made it different.\u201d<\/p>\n Responding to the government\u2019s comments in a statement, Facebook\u2019s Simon Milner, UK director of policy, said: \u201cWe want to provide a service where people feel safe. That means we do not allow groups or people that engage in terrorist activity, or posts that express support for terrorism. We want Facebook to be a hostile environment for terrorists. Using a combination of technology and human review, we work aggressively to remove terrorist content from our platform as soon as we become aware of it \u2014 and if we become aware of an emergency involving imminent harm to someone\u2019s safety, we notify law enforcement. Online extremism can only be tackled with strong partnerships. We have long collaborated with policymakers, civil society, and others in the tech industry, and we are committed to continuing this important work together.\u201d<\/p>\n Facebook has faced wider criticism of its approach to content moderation<\/a> in recent months \u2014 and last month<\/a> announced it would be adding an additional 3,000 staff to its team of reviewers, bringing the global total to 7,500.<\/p>\n In another reaction statement Twitter\u2019s UK head of public policy, Nick Pickles, added: \u201cTerrorist content has no place on Twitter. We continue to expand the use of technology as part of a systematic approach to removing this type of content. We will never stop working to stay one step ahead and will continue to engage with our partners across industry, government, civil society and academia.\u201d<\/p>\n Twitter details how many terrorism-related accounts it suspends in its Transparency Report \u2014 the vast majority of which it says it identifies using its own tools<\/a>, rather than relying on user reports.<\/p>\n On the controversial topic of limiting end-to-end encryption, a report in The Sun newspaper last month<\/a> suggested a re-elected Conservative government would prioritize a decryption law to force social media platforms which are using e2e encryption to effectively backdoor these systems so that they could hand over decrypted data when served a warrant.<\/p>\n The core legislation for this decrypt law already exists, aka the Investigatory Powers Act \u2014 which was passed at the end of last year. Following the General Election on June 8, a new UK Parliament will just need to agree the supplementary technical capability regulation which places a legal obligation on ISPs and communication service providers to maintain the necessary capability to be able to provide decrypted data on request (albeit, without providing technical detail on how any of this will happen in practice).<\/p>\n Given Rudd\u2019s comments now on limiting e2e encryption it seems clear the preferred route for an incoming Conservative UK government will be to pressure tech firms not to use strong encryption to safeguard user data in \u2014 backed up by the legal muscle of the country having what has been widely interpreted as a decrypt law.<\/p>\n However such moves will clearly undermine online security at a time when the risks of doing so are becoming increasingly clear<\/a>. As crypto expert Bruce Schneier told us\u00a0recently<\/a>, the only way for the UK government to get \u201cthe access it wants is to destroy everyone\u2019s security\u201d.<\/p>\n Moreover, a domestic decrypt law is unlikely to have any impact on e2e encrypted services \u2014 such as Telegram \u2014 which are not based in the UK, and would therefore surely not consider themselves bound by UK legal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n And even if the UK government forced ISPs and app stores to block access to all services that do not comply with its decryption requirements, there would still be workarounds for terrorists to continue accessing strongly encrypted services. Even as law-abiding users of mainstream tech platforms risk having their security undermined by political pressure on strong encryption.<\/p>\n\n
\n