
The EU-funded plan to stick a “flag this as terrorism” button in your browser - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/the-eu-funded-plan-to-stick-a-flag-this-as-terrorism-button-in-your-browser/
======
JulianMorrison
"The remains of Mr Smith, of 59 Pringleton Crescent, were today identified in
the ruins of his house. Mr Smith was killed when an automated anti-terrorist
drone fired a missile through his bedroom window. Authorities are refusing to
confirm or deny the rumour that his death was caused by an internet prank, as
his stamp-collecting site was repeatedly flagged as terrorist material by
members of the discussion site 4chan."

~~~
JakeSc
That seems pretty unrealistic. No developed country would use drones to kill
people based solely on accusation, forgoing their right to a fair trial.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Well, to be fair, it is mildly unrealistic they'd target voters. Or at least,
_their_ voters.

~~~
waps
1) the EU commission, the only EU institution with real lawgiving and
executive power, is not elected (they are hand-picked by foreign ministers of
EU nations, which are hand-picked by indirectly elected parliaments)

2) Jose Manuel Barrosso is an ex-communist (ex-Maoist to be exact). His style
of government, shall we say, "reflects this".

3) You only have to visit Brussels and ask about the many CD signs on the
road, or talk to a few people working for the EU and ask about
"fonctionnaires" to hear exactly how responsible they feel towards their
voters.

~~~
DeepDuh
Your first point is what I keep asking pro EU people here in Europe about and
for which I never get a satisfying answer on why this is acceptable. This and
the cluelessness of their lawmakers when it comes to tech makes me thank the
higher entity every day for not being an EU citizen (since I'm Swiss).

~~~
rbehrends
Actually, the European Commission _is_ elected by the European Parliament
(after having been proposed by the European Council), which is directly
elected by the citizens of the member states. From article 17 (7) of the
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union:

 _"Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after
having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a
qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for
President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European
Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the
required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall
within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European
Parliament following the same procedure."_

This is not at all different from how the British Prime Minister or the German
Chancellor are elected; in fact, the British Prime Minister is technically not
even elected; the requirement to have majority support in the House of Commons
is implicit when he or she is appointed by the monarch.

The European Parliament can also force the EC to resign via a motion of
censure (though that requires a 2/3 majority), which is what happened to the
Santer Commission [1]. From article 17 (8):

 _"The Commission, as a body, shall be responsible to the European Parliament.
In accordance with Article 234 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, the European Parliament may vote on a motion of censure of the
Commission. If such a motion is carried, the members of the Commission shall
resign as a body and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy shall resign from the duties that he carries out in the
Commission."_

While there are plenty of issues with the functioning of the EU, it is simply
not the case that the EC is not elected.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission#Resignation>

~~~
DeepDuh
Where did I say that there isn't an election process for the EC? The point I'm
trying to make is that the EC has way too much lawmaking power for it to be
elected indirectly. The way I understand it, what the EC decides are not mere
propositions to the parliament. Parliament seems to have to actively pressure
to take down a new law by EC, which is a reversal of roles.

Also, concerning the parliament, I'm wondering: Do people actually have much
choice in whom to elect? What do you need to do in order to rally for
parliament? Are there different party lists for example? Is it depending on
the national parties? E.g. do I need support from a national party to get into
the EU parliament?

------
Cogito
To be fair, as one commentator notes, “this document—in this phase— [is]
nothing more than a status report without strong countermeasures against
terrorism.”

They propose a potential method to combat terrorism online, as they were
chartered to do, but note how difficult such a task would be and also how
ineffective it is likely to be.

Some points from the document, quoted in the article:

• The Internet is not a single virtual society governed by one system of rule
of law.

• It is often difficult to determine which content on the Internet is illegal,
also because illegality depends on the context in which it is presented and
can differ worldwide and even between EU Member States.

• EU and Member States legislation and jurisdiction covers only a part of the
Internet.

• Illegal content itself does not always lead to radicalization and terrorist
acts, while content that does contribute to radicalization is not always
illegal.

• Many activities of (potential) terrorists start in ordinary, easy accessible
parts of the Internet and are not illegal.

I don't think it is wrong to investigate how to mitigate organised crime and
terrorism on the internet; the real concern is the cost in doing so, and what
comes from such investigation. From how it stands now I doubt the proposal to
implement a 'report terrorism' button will precipitate.

------
venomsnake
Typical braindead EU bureaucracy at action. I expect illegal crypto laws soon.

That is the problem with regulators - first they regulate sane stuff.
Everybody benefits from clean water and food. Then we regulate the semi sane
stuff - like how much space a cow need and what is humane - well that makes
some sense. It may not be the urgent problems, but animal cruelty is bad.

And then when they run out, just to keep the staff employed and budgets
growing they try to regulate unregulatable stuff.

Just put that unfiltered, unmonitored and encrypted internet is a human right.
And then hear the scream of the bureaucracy.

~~~
halvsjur
Ever expanding bureaucracy is a problem, and the EU has a track record of
turning several truly idiotic ideas into law. But people discussing EU
regulations should be aware that the level of bullshit and outright lies
coming out of the UK press in this regard is staggering.

Some nice examples: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqVJEZnYiZo>

~~~
jasonm23
"level of bullshit and outright lies coming out of the UK press" ...

...staggering would imply a degree of shock. They've been doing this since the
EU/ECM began.

------
nextparadigms
They must've stolen this "brilliant" idea from Lieberman.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111125/14202016898/sen-j...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111125/14202016898/sen-
joe-lieberman-asks-google-report-blog-as-terrorist-button.shtml)

~~~
flexxaeon
Or Robot Chicken <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srv_V3-oqsc>

------
gpcz
How quickly do you think the button will go away when some malware author
writes something that flags every site a person goes on as a terrorist site
(or some activist makes a voluntary browser plugin)?

~~~
pvaldes
So, now you can flag your stupid ex-boyfriend or your unwary buddy as
terrorist and have some laughs with only a simple clic, wow...

No need to search for a phone box anymore! Brilliant!

------
eksith
Because people are already so good at differentiating crass arguments from
just plain ol' trolling right?

Just the mere implication would be enough for some ISPs to pull the plug on
certain sites as they really can't be bothered to take on cyberbullying (by
people is a cakewalk, it's different when governments do it). So censoring a
disagreeable site is the least stressful method for them.

And I wonder how this will work with .onion sites... Oh, right. They'll just
jail node ops.

------
donall
The picture example in the article is of an Irish terrorist group.
Interestingly, supporters of this group are quite likely to flag official UK
government, police and armed forces groups as terrorist web sites.

Then again, an even greater number of people will flag sites like Facebook and
Google, for "humour value".

If this does become a "feature", I only hope that they will publish statistics
on what has been flagged.

~~~
gus_massa
Make false flagging illegal! It's always possible to improve a dumb idea with
a dumber idea.

~~~
Evbn
Then we will see false flag false flag attacks by government agents.

------
Irishsteve
They could have just bought delicious.com that way there would be stake for
different types of terrorism. The whole process woulda cost 1 million USD
right?

------
sageikosa
I suppose if you crowd-source wild accusations, then anything becomes
justifiable with enough up-votes. Welcome to the Reign of Terror 21st century
style.

------
saosebastiao
Sounds like the perfect platform for trolling.

