UK gov unveils extremism blocking tool

[ppdragos]

Quote

BBC news

 

The UK government has unveiled a tool it says can accurately detect jihadist content and block it from being viewed.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd told the BBC she would not rule out forcing technology companies to use it by law.

Ms Rudd is visiting the US to meet tech companies to discuss the idea, as well as other efforts to tackle extremism.

Thousands of hours of content posted by the Islamic State group was run past the tool, in order to "train" it to automatically spot extremist material.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43037899 

 

Obviously this is a min that should be attempted to stop radicalisation and much more needs doing but if this stops even one impressionable child from being dragged into that world surely we should all support it

[Guest Generallee]

Just now, ppdragos said:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43037899 

Europeans just don't get it. 

 

The only way to fight those fuckers is to infiltrate them. In Morocco, we have around 3000 ISIS fighters that want to get back here after the collapse of ISIS, terrorist cells and lone wolves are stopped every single day and it's not with the help of a stupid extremism detection tool.

 

The only effective way we found to counter them is to infiltrate the shit out of them, training specialized agents for deep cover operations that last several years, all mosques are under state surveillance, all religious figures are under state surveillance, literally everyone is spying on each other and any weird behavior is reported to the authorities. Is it the price to pay for security ? I don't know, but it's damn sure effective.

 

Result : Last terrorist attack here was 7 years ago.

[Sauron]

16 minutes ago, Generallee said:

Europeans just don't get it. 

 

The only way to fight those fuckers is to infiltrate them. In Morocco, we have around 3000 ISIS fighters that want to get back here after the collapse of ISIS, terrorist cells and lone wolves are stopped every single day and it's not with the help of a stupid extremism detection tool.

 

The only effective way we found to counter them is to infiltrate the shit out of them, training specialized agents for deep cover operations that last several years, all mosques are under state surveillance, all religious figures are under state surveillance, literally everyone is spying on each other and any weird behavior is reported to the authorities. Is it the price to pay for security ? I don't know, but it's damn sure effective.

 

Result : Last terrorist attack here was 7 years ago.

Yes, more surveillance! More spying! Down with privacy and human rights!

/s

If the vague possibility of being more effective at countering rare (yes, rare) successful terror attacks by a few extremists justifies religious persecution in your mind, you may just be worse than them.

[Guest Generallee]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

how about locals getting ISISified via the internet? o_o

Lone wolves are the worst, but I highly doubt preventing extremist videos will have any particular effect on the matter, even if I like your usage of the word ISISified, it's more of a combination of social-economical factors that push a particular non-religious person to suddenly seek shelter in religion, then become an extremely easy prey for extremists. The problem lies way deeper than these governments want to admit. Extremists have much more ways to attract people than two or three propaganda videos on the Internet, they seek vulnerable people in their absolute lowest.

[Guest Generallee]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, more surveillance! More spying! Down with privacy and human rights!

/s

If the vague possibility of being more effective at countering rare (yes, rare) successful terror attacks by a few extremists justifies religious persecution in your mind, you may just be worse than them.

I won't even step in the privacy and human rights deb8 m8. I'm worse than terrorists if that fits your idealistic view of the world.

 

Edit : Also, dude, I'm a muslim living in a muslim country and i'm all for religious persecution. Literraly no one minds that here. Even we know how dangerous Islam can be and how incompatible with the western world vision of human rights it is.

[Blademaster91]

19 minutes ago, Generallee said:

Europeans just don't get it. 

 

The only way to fight those fuckers is to infiltrate them. In Morocco, we have around 3000 ISIS fighters that want to get back here after the collapse of ISIS, terrorist cells and lone wolves are stopped every single day and it's not with the help of a stupid extremism detection tool.

I agree as blocking and censoring content is just "sweeping it under the rug.'' The UK probably doesn't want to increase surveillance due to fear of backlash from terror cells or implementing internet blocks instead of course costs the government less.

[Urishima]

So, any predictions on how badly this will backfire?

[Whiskers]

@ppdragos Please update your post with a summary of your own thoughts on the article, as per the section's posting guidelines.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, more surveillance! More spying! Down with privacy and human rights!

/s

If the vague possibility of being more effective at countering rare (yes, rare) successful terror attacks by a few extremists justifies religious persecution in your mind, you may just be worse than them.

Unless you are looking at 'jihadi for dummies' or 'how not to win a war in the middle east' what are you worried about?

This is like adblock but for ISIS propoganda. Not really spying.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

Unless you are looking at 'jihadi for dummies' or 'how not to win a war in the middle east' what are you worried about?

I'm worried that "jihadi for dummies" might become "anything the current government disagrees with politically", but that's not what that specific post was about.

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

This is like adblock but for ISIS propoganda. Not really spying.

I was referring to the post I quoted, which claimed the "solution" would be to put mosques and religious figures under constant state surveillance to avoid terror attacks.

[Clanscorpia]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

If the vague possibility of being more effective at countering rare (yes, rare) successful terror attacks by a few extremists justifies religious persecution in your mind, you may just be worse than them.

The difference is in those countries it isnt rare, its happens nearly everyday in the middle east. 

[Eduard the weeb]

I like this but hate the future of the internet because I have a feeling a political party will do this and block content from the otherside or something similar to this idea but hopefully I'm wrong.

[Sauron]

41 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

The difference is in those countries it isnt rare, its happens nearly everyday in the middle east. 

In the middle east (or at least in attack heavy locations) they don't have the means for mass surveillance to begin with, there are far less drastic measures that could be implemented first (as we have in the EU and the US) if the local governments had sufficient resources and scruples. Either way we were talking about Europe, the UK specifically.

[Coaxialgamer]

4 hours ago, Generallee said:

Europeans just don't get it. 

 

The only way to fight those fuckers is to infiltrate them. In Morocco, we have around 3000 ISIS fighters that want to get back here after the collapse of ISIS, terrorist cells and lone wolves are stopped every single day and it's not with the help of a stupid extremism detection tool.

 

The only effective way we found to counter them is to infiltrate the shit out of them, training specialized agents for deep cover operations that last several years, all mosques are under state surveillance, all religious figures are under state surveillance, literally everyone is spying on each other and any weird behavior is reported to the authorities. Is it the price to pay for security ? I don't know, but it's damn sure effective.

 

Result : Last terrorist attack here was 7 years ago.

Yeah sure, because that has definitely never been tried. What in the world makes you think European intelligence/CT agencies don't have people implanted in terrorist groups? This tech and traditional infiltration are NOT mutually exclusive 

[paddy-stone]

I have no problem with terrorists being taken down, and the propaganda too... but I can't help but think this will inevitably creep into blocking whatever they want. Money from media companies to try and stop the public from viewing warez/torrents etc. They ARE eroding our civil rights all the time, and it's people either not caring about it as they have the "if you're not doing anything wrong , then you have nothing to worry about" mentality. But they can't see how this will end up with censoring everything they don't agree with, or that they get paid backhanders from lobbyists to do so. Free speech is no longer a thing, if it ever was really.. just the perception of it.

 

I know something has to be done, but it should not come at the cost of eroding our civil liberties/rights. Even if you "don't care, I have nothing to hide", there will come a day when they will censor something you DO care about. It's not the thing they are censoring that's the problem, it;s that they can and will censor other things if people don't care.

 

Terrorists can rot in hell for all I care about them, this isn't about that. It's that they have made the "terrorists - war on terrorists, this will help" excuse all the time. They now keep records of all that goes in in Britain right now, but they still can't catch the terrorists until after the fact, even though there have been reports that they had them under surveilance before an attack happened. And it was AFTER they brought in these new measures to "fight terrorism" - it's pitiful how people are still falling for that same line.

I would rather be blown to hell than to have my life being monitored all the time, and records kept of everything. There is going to be a mass hack at some point and everyone's personal lives will be exposed, and possibly identities stolen, bank accounts raided etc etc... it will be way worse than anything the terrorists could ever do to us if that happens. People will lose everything, including their dignity.

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, Generallee said:

Europeans just don't get it. 

 

The only way to fight those fuckers is to infiltrate them. In Morocco, we have around 3000 ISIS fighters that want to get back here after the collapse of ISIS, terrorist cells and lone wolves are stopped every single day and it's not with the help of a stupid extremism detection tool.

 

The only effective way we found to counter them is to infiltrate the shit out of them, training specialized agents for deep cover operations that last several years, all mosques are under state surveillance, all religious figures are under state surveillance, literally everyone is spying on each other and any weird behavior is reported to the authorities. Is it the price to pay for security ? I don't know, but it's damn sure effective.

 

Result : Last terrorist attack here was 7 years ago.

I feel like this would be hard to do in some states. Like in the us the amount if resources it would take to do something like that is astronomical. The other problem is there isn't anything to infiltrate. It's just one guy being influenced and then committing an attack. The best way to stop something like that would be stop them in the planning phase or getting influenced phase which this is trying to prevent the latter. I do agree that more could be done to stop people during the planning phase.

[benji_]

Amber Rudd, hey shes my town's mp.

 

anyway, i dont support this decision. i think no matter what anything should fall under free speech, no matter how offensive, alt right, etc. it is.

 

blocking or censoring that content is essentially taking people's speech away since it is deemed offensive, and i dont think thats right.

 

thats my opinion, call me an asshole or what ever

[Cookybiscuit]

2 minutes ago, benji_ said:

Amber Rudd, hey shes my town's mp.

 

anyway, i dont support this decision. i think no matter what anything should fall under free speech, no matter how offensive, alt right, etc. it is.

 

blocking or censoring that content is essentially taking people's speech away since it is deemed offensive, and i dont think thats right.

 

thats my opinion, call me an asshole or what ever

I think you've had a bit too much to think, better turn yourself in at the local police station.

[Eaglerino]

Free speech or no free speech, there is no in between. I don't live in Britain but if I did, I wouldn't support something that's this anti free speech. It'll start with pro-ISIS, then the next extremism is any government opposition

[Aeternalis]

Really? Because last time I checked Britian was too busy putting people in jail for having right wing political views.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

Free speech or no free speech, there is no in between. I don't live in Britain but if I did, I wouldn't support something that's this anti free speech. It'll start with pro-ISIS, then the next extremism is any government opposition

I think the decided lack of grey areas in the US's culture is why it is so divided on everything and why so many problems exist in everything. 

 

Internet filters and censorship laws are going to be a hard pill to swallow, but so long as the filtering log is open for more than just the government to check on (multiple independent parties can assure the public only genuine extremist content is being filtered) and that the filter can be adjusted or even removed if not working, then there should not really be a problem.

[Guest Generallee]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I feel like this would be hard to do in some states. Like in the us the amount if resources it would take to do something like that is astronomical. The other problem is there isn't anything to infiltrate. It's just one guy being influenced and then committing an attack. The best way to stop something like that would be stop them in the planning phase or getting influenced phase which this is trying to prevent the latter. I do agree that more could be done to stop people during the planning phase.

Yes I agree, the US is gigantic and much far away from the middle east unlike Morocco, but the fact remains that it's a lot more difficult to spot potential attackers in the planning phase, especially if the person is alone.

[asus killer]

9 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

Free speech or no free speech, there is no in between. I don't live in Britain but if I did, I wouldn't support something that's this anti free speech. It'll start with pro-ISIS, then the next extremism is any government opposition

i don't even get the point of blocking these things. What they should do is identifying the guys behind the content and monitor whoever visits it. By blocking it they are just making them go underground and harder to identify. Makes no sense to me, but it could be me

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i don't even get the point of blocking these things. What they should do is identifying the guys behind the content and monitor whoever visits it. By blocking it they are just making them go underground and harder to identify. Makes no sense to me, but it could be me

I guess the problem is that until someone actually steps foot in the UK they can't do anything about it.  There is nothing to say they can't block and monitor at the same time.

[asus killer]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I guess the problem is that until someone actually steps foot in the UK they can't do anything about it.  There is nothing to say they can't block and monitor at the same time.

i see your point. But i guess they could identify the authors for whenever they go to UK or contact other countries to try and arrest or keep an eye on them. Regarding those in the UK who visit or look up these contents it's even easy to track or arrest. 

when you just block you at least loose the ability to track potential visitors and i guess if is blocked they stop using it and try other methods of communication, probably even harder to detect.

 

it's like fighting drugs, if you know the place they meet it's easier to identify and arrest them, that's why police then track them to another location from there so not to let them know they know the meeting place and go back there to identify more.

 

Just my 2 cents, of course these probably is way more complicated, but still i with the information i have would not do it this way.