The French-British action plan of 13 June 2017
The French-British action plan of 13 June 2017
The French-British action plan of 13 June 2017
Terrorists, and the people they influence ...
What is terrorism? Say that we use a simplistic definition in which a terrorist is someone who seeks to kill enemy civilians. That definition is problematic, because it turns Roosevelt into a terrorist who purposely targeted German civilians in the Hamburg and Dresden bombings in 1945. The same American administration also bombed the Japanese civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Still, someone who just glorifies these things, is not a terrorist, because talking about terrorism, and terrorism itself, are not one and the same thing.
... removing terrorist content ...
Content cannot be terrorist. An act can be terrorist, but the act and the description of the act are not one and the same thing.
we need industry to move from their current position of reactively removing content when it is notified to them, to proactively identifying content and preventing it from being made available ... Automate the detection and suspension or removal of content, based on both who posts, as well as what they post
A very large chunk of the internet is American. The French-British proposal is not compatible with USA 1969 Brandenburg versus Ohio.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action ("falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic") ... "mere advocacy" of any doctrine, including one that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation, [is] per se protected speech...Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.
It may be necessary to clarify what constitutes unacceptable content online
This has already been done: Brandenburg versus Ohio, 1969
Terrorist content should be permanently removed (under the “Notice and Stay Down” principle).
Under freedom of information, there will need to be a database of such notices made available to the public, so that they can verify content for being terrorist. This database then effectively becomes a gigantic website full of "terrorist content". The alternative would be to abrogate freedom of information. That would, however, in turn lead to instituting Soviet Union-style secret law.
France and the UK will continue to take a leading role in tackling terrorist content on the Francophone and Anglophone internet respectively.
The UK is not in a position to administer the Anglophone internet.
... promote alternative and counter-narratives ... promote their web-ranking ...
If they manage to force Google to promote that kind of content in their search results -- which I doubt Google would ever do -- that would simply be the end of the Google empire. The practice of manipulating search results is exactly the reason why search engines that existed before Google were abandoned.
...A single Internet Protocol (IP) address can be shared between hundreds of users ...The capability to identify specific users is important ...
It is not possible to change the way addressing of devices on the internet works. It is a mathematical problem. There is no reliable way of changing the laws of nature.
... particularly where suspects have accessed terrorist content ...
Literally everybody could access or stumble upon "terrorist content". Classifying users who have read "terrorist content" as terrorists will exponentially grow their number.
... When encryption technologies are used by criminal groups, and terrorists, it must be possible to access the content of communications and their metadata ...
The sentence is contradictory. If it is possible to access the content, then it is simply not encrypted.
This is not about backdoors or banning encryption...
It is technically not possible to achieve this without subverting the software and then banning software that has not been subverted, all of which would turn software that has not been subverted into "terrorist content".
Welcome the commitment of the US Administration and Congress to seek to pass legislation that removes blocks in US laws.
Even Barack Obama would not have been able to overrule the US constitution nor the Bill of Rights, let alone Donald Trump. Any attempt to overrule or just suspend the Constitution would lead to civil war in the US.
Terrorists, and the people they influence ...
What is terrorism? Say that we use a simplistic definition in which a terrorist is someone who seeks to kill enemy civilians. That definition is problematic, because it turns Roosevelt into a terrorist who purposely targeted German civilians in the Hamburg and Dresden bombings in 1945. The same American administration also bombed the Japanese civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Still, someone who just glorifies these things, is not a terrorist, because talking about terrorism, and terrorism itself, are not one and the same thing.
... removing terrorist content ...
Content cannot be terrorist. An act can be terrorist, but the act and the description of the act are not one and the same thing.
we need industry to move from their current position of reactively removing content when it is notified to them, to proactively identifying content and preventing it from being made available ... Automate the detection and suspension or removal of content, based on both who posts, as well as what they post
A very large chunk of the internet is American. The French-British proposal is not compatible with USA 1969 Brandenburg versus Ohio.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action ("falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic") ... "mere advocacy" of any doctrine, including one that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation, [is] per se protected speech...Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.
It may be necessary to clarify what constitutes unacceptable content online
This has already been done: Brandenburg versus Ohio, 1969
Terrorist content should be permanently removed (under the “Notice and Stay Down” principle).
Under freedom of information, there will need to be a database of such notices made available to the public, so that they can verify content for being terrorist. This database then effectively becomes a gigantic website full of "terrorist content". The alternative would be to abrogate freedom of information. That would, however, in turn lead to instituting Soviet Union-style secret law.
France and the UK will continue to take a leading role in tackling terrorist content on the Francophone and Anglophone internet respectively.
The UK is not in a position to administer the Anglophone internet.
... promote alternative and counter-narratives ... promote their web-ranking ...
If they manage to force Google to promote that kind of content in their search results -- which I doubt Google would ever do -- that would simply be the end of the Google empire. The practice of manipulating search results is exactly the reason why search engines that existed before Google were abandoned.
...A single Internet Protocol (IP) address can be shared between hundreds of users ...The capability to identify specific users is important ...
It is not possible to change the way addressing of devices on the internet works. It is a mathematical problem. There is no reliable way of changing the laws of nature.
... particularly where suspects have accessed terrorist content ...
Literally everybody could access or stumble upon "terrorist content". Classifying users who have read "terrorist content" as terrorists will exponentially grow their number.
... When encryption technologies are used by criminal groups, and terrorists, it must be possible to access the content of communications and their metadata ...
The sentence is contradictory. If it is possible to access the content, then it is simply not encrypted.
This is not about backdoors or banning encryption...
It is technically not possible to achieve this without subverting the software and then banning software that has not been subverted, all of which would turn software that has not been subverted into "terrorist content".
Welcome the commitment of the US Administration and Congress to seek to pass legislation that removes blocks in US laws.
Even Barack Obama would not have been able to overrule the US constitution nor the Bill of Rights, let alone Donald Trump. Any attempt to overrule or just suspend the Constitution would lead to civil war in the US.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 14 Replies
- 3286 Views
-
Last post by Chad Sexington
-
- 15 Replies
- 4538 Views
-
Last post by Soriya
-
- 38 Replies
- 6830 Views
-
Last post by RoryR
-
- 2 Replies
- 1601 Views
-
Last post by SternAAlbifrons
-
- 0 Replies
- 958 Views
-
Last post by AndyKK
-
- 0 Replies
- 863 Views
-
Last post by CEOCambodiaNews
-
- 24 Replies
- 6308 Views
-
Last post by mannanman
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 874 guests