skip to main |
skip to sidebar
But:
As soon as Twitter suspends one account, a new one is created.... [And] of the top five encryption apps recommended by the Islamic State, none are American-made....
And:
“We don’t believe that law enforcement should delegate their responsibilities to private enterprise,” said David Greene, director for civil liberties at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Especially ones that haven’t sought out that role.”
In some cases, Internet companies have been criticized for not taking down websites that belong to the Islamic State, only to have it discovered later that the sites were critical of it. Matthew Prince, chief executive of CloudFlare, a San Francisco company, said that in one case Internet activists criticized his company for keeping several Islamic State websites online when, in fact, the sites in question were pro-Kurdish.
“It’s particularly risky to take a bunch of tech companies that are not certified policy experts and insert them into Middle East politics,” Mr. Prince said.
Pulling all terror-related content is not always preferred by law enforcement. In several cases, tech executives say, they have been asked to keep terror-related content online so that law enforcement agents can monitor terrorist networks or because the content was created by law enforcement agents to lure terrorists into divulging information.
The issue is thornier for companies like Facebook, in which the bulk of posts are meant to be private. “Do you want Facebook looking at over 1.5 billion people’s posts?” said Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor in technology policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “And if so, then for what?”
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
More proof that Hillary!!! is clueless when it comes to the modern world.
The answer is to hack into the jihadists' own accounts (on whatever servers they're running) and shut them down with computer viruses and malware.
Platitudes and minor nibbles at the margins, is that what Hillary's bringing to the national table?
“It’s particularly risky to take a bunch of tech companies that are not certified policy experts and insert them into Middle East politics,” Mr. Prince said.
Who certifies policy experts? Just curious.
“Do you want Facebook looking at over 1.5 billion people’s posts?” said Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor in technology policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “And if so, then for what?”
-- Well, first it'll be for terrorist related posts. Then, for whatever else they can get away with. We have a way for the government to compel companies to do things and ways in which to conduct digital and physical search and seizures. We should use those instead of creating a new, shadow method of doing it.
Do you want Facebook looking at over 1.5 billion people’s posts?
Whether I want them to or not, they are, and will continue to do so for their own purposes.
Hillary is still in 1974 and the Watergate Committee. She hasn't progressed. How long since she has driven a car ?
Trump is backing this now too. He said something about Bill Gates closing up the internet. Lol.
“Do you want Facebook looking at over 1.5 billion people’s posts?”
That's exactly what the government wants. That's the whole point. It won't be limited to Radical Islamists either. It'll be about "extremists", which is anyone the government says it is.
Is this what America's best and brightest will do with their many gifts? Build the Surveillance State? Will that be their legacy to mankind?
“Do you want Facebook looking at over 1.5 billion people’s posts? ... And if so, then for what?”
a) Well, If you can see who has insufficient adulation for Planned Parenthood, liberals will know who deserves to be murdered, per Ms. Stasi.
b) As if Facebook isn't already monitoring the hell out of your posts.
So she pretends she'll be tough where both the achievement and accountability are impossible. Meanwhile she's soft on policy. Isn't it obvious her aggressive stances are PR meant only to give her surrogates something to spin?
Also, with how the IRS and Justice department got politicized, along with attempts to use the No Fly list as a political tool, I'm hesitant to give the government MORE tools to restrict people's rights outside of proper judicial channels.
This is the same party that created "Attack Watch" to encourage citizens to inform on their fellow citizens and float ideas of jailing people for ungood think on global warming. I'm not sure I *want* them to have the power to create more lists of people with what they deem as dangerous opinions.
Hillary is easily confused.
"More proof that Hillary!!! is clueless when it comes to the modern world."
As stupid as Trump's idea to "close up" the internet.
The issue is thornier for companies like Facebook, in which the bulk of posts are meant to be private. “Do you want Facebook looking at over 1.5 billion people’s posts?”
You would think an assistant professor in technology policy would understand how Facebook works. They make their money by looking at posts, aggregating the data and selling the information. The fact that you can share pictures of your cat with friends is just the bait to lure users.
Of course Hillary is clueless about technology, as she is about most things in the modern world. I might vote for her over Trump anyway because she's a lifetime pol, a hack who is too much of an insider to have any big ideas that will really screw things up.
Except...the issue with her health. Given how pathetic the Democratic lineup is right now, I can't even imagine who her running-mate might be.
Who certifies policy experts? Just curious.
Same accrediting outfit that certifies all the "Authentic Mexican Food" places.
The objective here is to have a no-bid no cost limit contract wherein Homeland Security pays Facebook to filter political content of posts.
Who certifies policy experts?
I do! I certify Hillary!! as non-expert in this matter.
If there is anything that gives a nameless Government bureaucrat more power (in the name of !!!SAFETY!!!! -- Think of the Children!) then Hillary!!! will be for it. Because Bureaucrats are accountable to no one and if they fail, well at least the Politicians can say Well, we TRIED!!
"Farook, I think the Americans have hacked "I Can Haz Jihad!". All our LOL ISIS Cat Photos -- Gone!"
"No!"
"And they got "Dreamy Teen Jihadi", too! All of your Justin Bieber-as-a-Sweaty-Nude-Jihadi Photoshops, wiped away!"
"I worked hard on those Photoshops of Justin Bieber: I worked very, very hard."
"The level of detail you put in those was quite impressive. I particularly liked the one where you added that lens flare to his shaved balls."
"Jihadis often shave their balls for Purity before going into battle, but why would American men do so? Is it because American women like shaved balls?"
"I have never understood American women."
"Isn't that the Truth. Of the Devil, they are."
"Perhaps it is because if the man shaved his balls the woman would probably get less hair in her mouth when she sucked his cock."
"Maybe; American women are always sucking cock."
"I know: I have seen the videos."
"Did you see the video of Paris Hilton?"
"Oh yes. She certainly knows how to suck the cock."
"And blonde. Blonde American girls best suck the cock."
"Blondes? What about Kim Kardashian? Did you see her video?"
"She definitely knows how to suck cock. And she almost does looks Arab."
"Wouldn't that be something? If Kim Kardashian was a secret sleeper for ISIS, just sucking on cocks until it is time for Jihad?"
"What if ALL the Kardashian girls were secret sleepers for ISIS, all of them just sucking on cocks by the swimming pool until it is time for Jihad..."
"That would be a beautiful thing to see."
"Indeed. Amir -- Is Bukkake allowed by the Koran?"
"I would think so, Farook, if it is Western women: we would need to check with the Iman to be sure."
"But what about Bruce Jenner?"
"Huh?"
"He is a woman now. Do you think he sucks cocks for ISIS?"
"Allah works in mysterious ways..."
I am Laslo.
Facebook actually took down Malik's post, when she praised ISIS in the middle of her crime spree. Facebook will take down any post it deems does not fit their code of conduct. Nudity, threats, terrorism....whatever. They and gmail scan what you write when you use their services and use the information for their own purposes.
BUT I don't want government dictating that purpose. That's what China does.
They could set up their own servers for mail and...... oh wait, that was someone else hiding stuff.
Just more generalities that don't hold up, like Obama saying he will destroy ISIL. Sounds good. "We will deprive them of virtual territory." Check. Let's move on to some other topic please, before the public realizes that's all I got. Someone call MSNBC, CNN, VOX, Daily Dish, Politico, etc. and let them know not to challenge the statement.
I thought Anonymous was going to take of this for us.......
Don't need twitter, hotmail or any of that. It is easy peasey to send encrypted messages through the comments section of a blog like Althouse. Ann would probably delete it but there are plenty of blogs where comments are not moderated.
For example:
------------Begin Encrypted Text------------
502763666223298950227616645905166596488466909
443844522529068686705316670692606669046611521
729951211877555373164681367754556741771292436
------------End Encrypted Text--------------
Adbul, please respond in the comments section at you know where.
That message is secure to the point that I doubt that NSA could break it in any reasonable number of centuries without a key. My right to say that above is protected by 1A. 1A is, in turn, protected by 2A. That might be why govt in the 90s tried to block strong encryption as a "munition".
Secure, strong, encryption is freely available to anyone who wants it. That cat has been out of the bag since the early 90's when Phil Zimmerman released PGP. A public key encryption system based on RSA public key. It is open source and free for download.
John Henry
Or, if all I need is to trigger a pre-agreed action, I can make a pre-arranged comment.
For example:
Blogger Matthew Sablan said...
Also, with how the IRS and Justice department got politicized, along with attempts to use the No Fly list as a political tool, I'm hesitant to give the government MORE tools to restrict people's rights outside of proper judicial channels.
Right you are, Matthew. We are waist deep in the big muddy and the big fool says to push on.
Ann, are you facilitating terrorist communication with your comment section?
(Just kidding. I certainly don't think you are doing it on purpose. OTOH, you would never have any idea whether you are or not.)
John Henry
@MM: "More proof that Hillary!!! is clueless when it comes to the modern world."
We can't impose religious tests, but couldn't we have at least the following: 1. a tech test (bye-bye Hillary!) 2. an Econ 101 test (bye-bye Bernie), and 3. a geography test (bye-bye Ben) for the highest office? Oh, and 4. a federal/con law test (bye-bye anyone but Cruz?). Of course, any Prog candidate would pull a Gertrude Stein on the latter.
Like the no-fly/no-buy proposal, this is just a distraction from the hard work of defeating the Islamic State, IQ, and other enemies.
"Resolve". What calibers does that come in?
The only resolve Hillary has is to make money for herself by acquiring power.
An American Evita who can't sing.
So, the Hillary! is proposing vigilantism now. She wants American companies to rise up and crush the Muslim threat.
No, nothing fascist about that.
At the same time denying these same people access to our county is redolent of Nazi Germany, while depriving American citizens of their personal freedoms without due process is not?
That's some powerful thinking you guys are doing. Powerful.
@TM: "I can't even imagine who her running-mate might be." Castro, Booker, or Patrick.
Did the irony meter just behead itself? Yes Hil..perhaps we can wipe their communications away..with a cloth.
@John,
Or, if all I need is to trigger a pre-agreed action, I can make a pre-arranged comment
"Jean a une moustache tres longues"
See you on the Beach in Omaha, buddy! Come ready to party-hardy!
Does Obama have a policy expert certificate? May we see it?
Fucking clueless
Everybody having a good laugh at Trump saying he would have 'the internet closed up'. Who cares that he is not technical? Trump is tearing the lid off all the PC crap that makes talking about these things verboten.
I'm having trouble keeping up with all Trump's proclamations, thanks Althouse for warehousing it all.
"We should work with host companies to shut them down."
Make sure the terrorists don't get access to Billary's personal server(s) or else all their suspicious messages will disappear.
Give Hillary a break. She is behind the curve on the hard ideas.
Hillary's Body Woman named Huma is in charge of waking Hillary up and telling her what has happened over the past three days. And Huma is defiant that SHE is The Muslim In Charge.
Isn't it clear that Hillary! is calling on Tech companies to do something because she and Huma have no idea what to do. Who advises Huma? Carlos Danger?
Speaking of Huma and sleep:
Is Huma a sleeper agent? Look at her bio:
Born in the US to Pakistani and Indian Muslim parents. Both fairly fundamentalist.
Raised in Saudi Arabia. (was she circumcised? That might account for Carlos Danger's behavior)
Came back to the US at 19 to go to school and seemed to always have a fair amount of money even though neither father nor mother made much as U. Profs.
Editor in Chief (or a similar title) of her mother's rather fundamentalist Muslim magazine for a number of years until she started at State.
Mother still in Saudi Arabia teaching at a Muslim university. "Say, Huma, about your mother's job. We might have to lay her off." Or worse, "Say Huma, we discovered your mother engaging in prohibited, unislamic, activities. She needs to pay a visit to Chop-Chop Square. Unless maybe you can help us find some things we need to know."
How in the Hell did Huma ever get a security clearance? I think we know but it is unlikely that anyone else in a similar position would have.
I doubt she would become a violet Jihadi. She is too valuable on the inside. OTOH, if a President Clinton needed to be taken out, she might be able to make that happen and would not necessarily even be suspected.
Me, paranoid? Naaaah. Remember that paranoia is an unreasonable fear of someone(s)
John Henry
Hillary! is campaigning for office and giving scripted tidbits to please whatever audience she is addressing at the moment. Why post her schlock as it was for serious and worthy of discussion?
Of course, any Prog candidate would pull a Gertrude Stein on the latter.
I'd rather Hillary pull a Sylvia Plath.
garage mahal said...
"More proof that Hillary!!! is clueless when it comes to the modern world."
As stupid as Trump's idea to "close up" the internet.
12/8/15, 8:29 AM"
You think your comment is an intelligent observation? You may have intentionally overlooked that while Trump might be the Republican nominee Hillary IS the Democrat nominee in all but name. But thanks for acknowledging that Hillary is an idiot.
All the talk about Huma,..what's the word on Quagmire..I mean Anthony's Wiener? Mr. mom these days?
I'm just waiting for Trump to declare he would rescind the presidential order banning CIA assassinations and hint, hint reviewing a possible target list. A few more terrorist attacks and what is said in jest just might become a desired outcome by a majority of the public.
It would be a mistake to start closing off avenues of communication. Maintaining free communication should be a hallmark of our society. If it results in death for some of us, then that's the price we must pay. We make trade-offs for so many of the things that define us. Highway deaths alone account for some 30,000 a year. We obviously think the freedom to drive automobiles is worth it.
We've reached an untenable place where any death is unacceptable, no matter what the stakes are. Obama is so unwilling to let American servicemen die that he will not fight an enemy that is a serious threat to our civilization. Imagine a world where FDR, George Marshall or Dwight Eisenhower felt the same way.
Until we accept the idea that sacrifices must be made, we will be setting ourselves up to lose.
Unserious people in serious times with unserious solutions to serious problems.
Hillary Clinton Tech Wizard:
Here's my question: on this new berry can I get smiley faces?
Can you find out for me what the NPR stations I can hear on Long Island are? I lost the WNYC signal half way down the island and I can't figure out from Google what the next stations are.
Do I have to charge it? If so, how? I don't have cords.
I don't know if I have wifi. How do I find out?
Huma explaining about Hillary: She's often confused.
Boy it hasn't taken long for the democrats to trample all over consititional freedoms, just think what they will do if they ever really get power.
1st amendment - Shut down anything that we think we do not want to see on social media. -- check.
2nd amendment - Take away someones 2nd amendment rights if you put them on a guvment created no fly list -- Checkput people on guvment created no fly listcheck
Haven't gotten to the rest yet.
Hillary's problem is that she wants the Islamist jihadists to be a law enforcement problem, so that it can be controlled through legislation and criminal courts. Because the military is icky and war is bad, or something else leftist.
Unfortunately, the jihadists are waging a war, using all military and nonmilitary means to win territory and converts and conscripts.
So Hill has this problem which she will never be able to solve as if it were a criminal matter.
When she is elected president it will be interesting to see if she realizes this and makes one of her patented 180 degree turns, while constantly declaring she was right all along and never changed her mind about anything. Probably not, as military force and ROEs and declarations of war require ceding authority, and the opportunities for graft and corruption, to males with guns.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा