Do GCHQ/MI5 etc need more powers to fight terrorism?

[rscott]

BlackLabel said:

Theresa May has called on internet companies to do more to tackle the spread of extremist material in the wake of the London Bridge terror attack as a former cabinet minister said online giants must “face up to their responsibilities”. The Prime Minister said the UK “cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are” as she set out tough measures to tackle terrorism in response to the attack. She said that there must now be greater regulation of the internet and that existing online “safe spaces” that allow terrorism to “breed” must be eradicated.

Theresa May said:

We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.

And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.

IDS showing his complete lack of understanding of the internet. He wants companies to prevent children getting access to IS propaganda when they can't even stop access to porn & dodgy streams...

[loafer123]

At the very least they could ensure that Facebook and YouTube et al do a better job of taking down illegal content.

[Tannedbaldhead]

They don't need more power they need more resources.

Bad guys are flying under the radar because security and intelligence services don't have the manpower to deal with them. No point in say authorising a mass snoopers' charter if we haven't the snoopers to snoop.

[ATG]

loafer123 said:

At the very least they could ensure that Facebook and YouTube et al do a better job of taking down illegal content.

No doubt they could react to users reporting dodgy content more promptly, but the content can just be moved to other hosts. I doubt any action by Facebook or YouTube is going to make a noticeable difference.

We expect publishers to take responsibility for what they choose to publish. We don't hold phone companies responsible for the content of phone calls. Services like Facebook are much closer to being phone companies than they are publishers.

I see no reason why an Internet messaging service shouldn't be required to cooperate with the security services in the same way that phone companies are; i.e. after getting a Home Office Warrant, the internet firm hands over everything they've got. Depending on the incompetence of the suspect, the info released to the Security Services could be anywhere between completely transparent to completely meaningless.

[768]

Rudd has represented herself well in recent weeks in what appear to be difficult personal circumstances.

But she needs to quietly drop this encryption backdoor angle, preferably after asking someone to explain it to her. Just an afternoon with a couple of experts would seem to be invaluable.

[pip t]

768 said:

Rudd has represented herself well in recent weeks in what appear to be difficult personal circumstances.

But she needs to quietly drop this encryption backdoor angle, preferably after asking someone to explain it to her. Just an afternoon with a couple of experts would seem to be invaluable.

This. The most frustrating thing about the encryption debate is that it's quite clear the the lawmakers generally don't even slightly understand it. And in many cases, don't seem that interested in understanding it.

[andy_s]

pip t said:

This. The most frustrating thing about the encryption debate is that it's quite clear the the lawmakers generally don't even slightly understand it. And in many cases, don't seem that interested in understanding it.

One day Home Secretary espousing on the benefits of decryption, the next Minister of Fisheries pontificating on the lack of cod.

Until we live in a meritocracy, 'twas ever thus.

[Carl_Manchester]

Tonsko said:

0000 said:

I don't think end to end encryption should be weakened for anyone. I'm sure at least one of those three has the technical capacity to work around it to a limited extent in exceptional circumstances and I'm fine with that.

Yeh, it's when the handset is compromised. All of the encryption in the world won't stop messages being read then, as it's only so in transit.

As we see from the CIA leak, there are ample tools to do that.

I agree with Tonsko.

Too much talk about encryption, its a nonsense.