The French-British action plan of 13 June 2017

Cambodia news in English! Here you'll find all the breaking news from Cambodia translated into English for our international readership and expat community to read and comment on. The majority of our news stories are gathered from the local Khmer newspapers, but we also bring you newsworthy media from Cambodia before you read them anywhere else. Because of the huge population of the capital city, most articles are from Phnom Penh, but Siem Reap, Sihanoukville, and Kampot often make the headlines as well. We report on all arrests and deaths of foreigners in Cambodia, and the details often come from the Cambodian police or local Khmer journalists. As an ASEAN news outlet, we also publish regional news and events from our neighboring countries. We also share local Khmer news stories that you won't find in English anywhere else. If you're looking for a certain article, you may use our site's search feature to find it quickly.
eriksank
Expatriate
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:25 am
Reputation: 24

The French-British action plan of 13 June 2017

Post by eriksank »

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.
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], crackheadyo, drozd, Gazzy, Ingvar 7788, paul2d, Spigzy and 754 guests