
Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated after London terror attack - r721
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-internet-regulated-london-bridge-terror-attack-google-facebook-whatsapp-borough-security-a7771896.html
======
xaa
I just don't understand the UK on surveillance and free speech issues. In most
ways, the UK seems more sane than the US, but they have these absurd libel
laws and take any and every opportunity to cry "regulate the internet" when
anything bad happens involving the internet. Notably, there was no call for
"we need to increase our regulation of cars or knives" after this incident.

Any UK resident have insight on why the UK is so backwards on these issues? It
is pretty obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge of computers that
terrorist "safe spaces" (assuming that big internet companies knowingly
provide them, which I find dubious) are kind of impossible to remove or
regulate. The ability of the internet to provide encrypted, point-to-point
communications is a pretty core feature.

~~~
marcoperaza
Rights that don't fully exist in the UK anymore:

* Free speech (see prohibitions on "hate speech" and "extremism")

* The right to remain silent (your silence can be used as evidence of guilt in court)

* The right to a jury trial (the UK now allows majority, 10-2, verdicts. The right to a jury trial can also be removed in cases where the government suspects jury tampering.)

* Habeas Corpus (up to 14 days detention without charge of terrorism suspects. it was 28 days until 2011)

* The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure (in many situations the standard of evidence has been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" and is increasingly at the discretion of police/government instead of courts)

* The prohibition on double jeopardy (the government can petition for a new trial after acquittal if substantial new evidence comes to light)

* The exclusion of illegally gathered evidence from court (the UK never had an exclusionary principle)

* The right to self-defense (there is no castle doctrine in the UK. In every US state except Vermont, you can use lethal force with impunity against an intruder to your home. See the UK case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for shooting robbers who were in his home)

* The right to assemble

* The right to keep arms (I realize this crowd may not be a fan of this right, but nevertheless it used to be a right Englishmen and Americans both enjoyed)

~~~
k-mcgrady
Well that's a load of nonsense. How about backing some of it up? We do have a
right to a jury trial. Self-defense is an important defence in several laws.
There are assemblies/protests in central London every weekend pretty much.
Regarding the 'right to remain silent' when arrested in the UK you do not have
to say anything. As for the right to keep arms - we don't want it. If our
police force believes they can do their job without all carrying firearms (and
last night where they tracked down and killed the attackers within 8 mins of
the first call to them proves they are right) the general public doesn't need
them either.

~~~
marcoperaza
For self defense, see the case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for
shooting intruders in his home. Castle doctrine would have protected his
actions in all US states except Vermont.

The right to remain silent in the US (and previously in the UK) means that
your silence cannot be presented as evidence of guilt in court. In the UK,
such evidence may be presented and the the jury is instructed that they may
make negative inferences from your refusal to speak with the police.

The right to a jury trial has been limited by changes that allow juries to
reach majority (10-2) verdicts and by removing the right to a jury trial in
cases where the government suspects jury tampering.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about guns. But any list of rights no
longer enjoyed by Englishmen wouldn't be complete without mentioning it.
Whether it's for the better or worse is another issue.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Re: Tony Martin

He used an illegally held weapon to 'defend his property'. He lay in wait for
the burglars and shot at them in the dark and again shot at them (killing one)
as they attempted to flee.

How in any world is that self-defence? As they were fleeing he was under no
threat and therefore such deadly force is completely unreasonable and no
longer being used in defence of anything anyway.

Unless you want to live in a world where people are shot dead for accidentally
wandering on to another persons land the concept of necessary and reasonable
force is a fair one.

~~~
marcoperaza
I agree that the right to self-defense is something that must be limited by
tests of necessity and reasonableness, in general. But within your home, I
think castle doctrine should be the guiding principle. Castle doctrine doesn't
apply to people wandering across your land, it applies to people illegally
_inside_ your home.

~~~
Silhouette
There are a surprising number of officials who might have reasonable grounds
and lawful basis for entering your property, possibly without your knowledge
or consent. Emergency services responding to something like a fire or a call
saying someone was hurt would be an obvious example. A more subtle example
might be something in your home generating noise or radio interference that is
affecting everyone else in the area and needs to be turned off.

So, maybe a blanket law saying you can cause essentially unlimited harm or
death to anyone entering your property without your consent isn't such a good
idea? There are at least two main legal foundations in England for what we
casually refer to as a right to self defence, but both of them rely on a test
of reasonableness if force is used. Also, it's already acknowledged that
someone's idea of what seems reasonable won't be perfect if, say, they are
half-awake at 3am and find an intruder standing in the dark outside their
child's bedroom, and so there is already an element of benefit of the doubt
being given in such situations. Going beyond that would have to be based on
either an argument that the current law isn't clear enough to make someone
confident to act reasonably (which is a legitimate concern) or an argument
that we want to legitimise the deliberate use of grossly excessive force
(which, IMHO, is not).

------
hutzlibu
In allmost all terrorist attacks in europe(also 9/11), the police had alarming
data about the attackers before and in some cases even recieved explicit
warnings about the attackers - yet the attacks still happened.

But still every politician demandes MORE surveilance, even though they
allready had all the data. So maybe they need more personal. But not more
surveillance.

It would not surprise me, if this case is similar.

~~~
imglorp
Conclusion: they don't want the surveillance to stop terrorism. It's against
someone else.

~~~
otaviokz
It's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who can see this obvious thing.

~~~
Bakary
It's not exactly an obscure or novel view.

~~~
ionised
Tell that to the British electorate.

------
f_allwein
What? This was a relatively small incdent and police killed the attackers
within eight minutes of being called (
[http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-london-bridge-
and-...](http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-london-bridge-and-borough-
market-statement-by-commissioner-244608) ). How dare any politicians use this
to promote their agendas?

~~~
exodust
Small incident? This was a coordinated attack by three terrorists. More than
40 injured. Truck and knives used as weapons on Saturday night crowds.

Look at the intended carnage. Police response time has nothing to do with
evaluating the seriousness of the crime. Think about the organised networks
behind these attacks, and the "routine" nature they are becoming, and then
perhaps contribute ideas to help prevent them.

~~~
coldcode
How many people died last week in the UK from fentanyl overdoses? How many
from alcohol involved traffic accidents? More than this. Why is terror more
terrible than unexpected death by other means?

~~~
tempodox
Put simply, it's much easier to argue that you must sacrifice all liberty for
protection against terror than against drunk driving. Terror serves your
oppressor's needs better than anything else.

~~~
freedomintruth
If you want to know why political and religious violence is worse than drug
overdose and why we have to resist it, look at Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Afghanistan. Although we can say it was Bush then Obama who destabilized the
country by removing the tyrants, in the tyrants' absence, religion-influenced
political struggles (ie. Sunni vs Shiite, Islam vs Kurd) blew the countries
apart, and continues to blow the countries apart.

So drug addictions can be bad, but religously-motivated wars are worse because
they will destroy everyone. Even stable countries like Saudi Arabia is not
immune, and people are worried that the more radical elements there will take
power if the country loses its wealth, wealth which is used to pacify the
population.

------
cirrus-clouds
A lot of people in the UK don't know what surveillance powers the government
has enacted into law. Nor do they know the plans the government has in their
2017 manifesto.

I created a campaigning site to dissuade people from voting for the
Conservatives in the election - I know that will be frowned up on here, but I
wrote an entire section on the site to explain (in laypersons terms) what
surveillance powers have been legislated and proposed by the Conservatives:

[https://www.dontvoteconservativeuk.com/#security](https://www.dontvoteconservativeuk.com/#security)

~~~
deepGem
It does look like either the Labour or the Tories favour surveillance heavily.
It makes me wonder, do the leaders of these parties actually believe that such
surveillance can ensure security ? Or, is it that most of the common people
see surveillance as a good security measure and the political parties are just
appeasing these people. I can't help but extrapolate this situation to the
scenario depicted in "V for Vendetta".

~~~
thedlade
The public aren't asking for any of this. They only use these cases as a sort
of opportunity window to introduce laws that ban various types of porn

~~~
zigzigzag
There is also the opposite problem. The public aren't asking for it not to be
done either. Internet surveillance isn't a hot button political topic either
way. However, terrorism is. Hence the problem.

------
coldtea
> _The Prime Minister said introducing new rules for cyberspace would “deprive
> the extremists of their safe spaces online” and that technology firms were
> not currently doing enough._

We had widespread uncatchable for years (or decades) terrorism in the 60s and
70s (from RAF in Germany and Brigate Rosse in Italy, Action Direct in France,
to Carlos, and tons of others) without the internet. Hundreds of bombings,
kidnappings, executions, etc.

Where does the BS idea come that if you track the internet you will stop
modern terrorism?

~~~
joncrocks
To play devil's advocate....

Saying that we've 'had terrorism for ages' is like saying that we 'had war for
ages' and so firearms didn't change anything.

I have no idea what the 'official' idea is around trying to lock down 'safe
spaces' on the internet, but the idea that the reduction of the availability
of certain material may reduce the impact of certain material isn't beyond the
realms of reason.

We legislate against all sorts of things that should have no effect if
everyone were a level-headed rational actor.

In days of old, the only way you could recruit people to your cause was likely
in person. Now you can do this in a much more distributed way over the
internet.

When a certain (admittedly vanishingly small) proportion of the population is
susceptible to certain arguments, for whatever reason, with lethal
consequences, then is suggesting that those arguments should be suppressed a
bad idea?

(note: this is not the position I hold)

~~~
coldtea
> _Saying that we 've 'had terrorism for ages' is like saying that we 'had war
> for ages' and so firearms didn't change anything._

For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that
the internet (or lack of it) plays in terrorism.

Which I don't think is the case.

My point is, even without access to modern telecommunications at all,
terrorisms could be as effective, if not more, back in decades past. So
suddenly tapping the internet would stop them?

> _I have no idea what the 'official' idea is around trying to lock down 'safe
> spaces' on the internet, but the idea that the reduction of the availability
> of certain material may reduce the impact of certain material isn't beyond
> the realms of reason._

Well, it has worked wonders for alcohol (the prohibition), drugs, pornography,
and everywhere else this concept has been tried.

> _In days of old, the only way you could recruit people to your cause was
> likely in person. Now you can do this in a much more distributed way over
> the internet._

Which doesn't matter much, since you still need lots of in person checking out
the person, plus meetings give them physical equipment they'll need (guns or
whatever). Unless they fed-ex those...

~~~
joncrocks
(again, only playing devil's advocate :-) )

> For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that
> the internet (or lack of it) plays in terrorism.

I used the example of firearms as it's a force multiplier (and yeah, it's not
a great analogy I admit). This allows a single person to have a potentially
much larger impact by reaching more people, some of which may be susceptible
to the message.

The internet allows lots of people with similar opinions/interests to
communicate (and find each other) which either would not have not been
possible in the past, or very difficult. You see this played out in all sorts
of places where there are communities built up online that wouldn't have been
possible before, in all sorts of niche interests.

> Well, it has worked wonders for alcohol (the prohibition), drugs,
> pornography, and everywhere else this concept has been tried.

Did less (in number) people drink during prohibition than before/after? Would
less people do drugs if they were legalised? Any reasonable argument would
suggest that you obviously can't prevent all 'bad' communication, but you want
to try and reduce the ease of availability of propaganda.

Although I admit there is an obvious parallel with the 'gateway drugs'
argument that's frequently made :-)

> Which doesn't matter much, since you still need lots of in person checking
> out the person, plus meetings give them physical equipment they'll need
> (guns or whatever). Unless they fed-ex those...

For a good number of recent attacks, this isn't necessarily true. Attackers
use everyday items (vehicles, knifes etc.) and you don't need to 'check anyone
out' because it's not a conversation, it's just a 'go out and kill people'
message.

------
cwilson
You know it's not really about terrorism when stopping people from viewing
pornography is also part of the proposed agenda.

~~~
ilanco
True. What does viewing pornography have to do with terrorism? I find it
despicable that she's using a horrible event to push forward her own agenda.

~~~
rocqua
Obviously, porn weakens the moral fiber, thus making people more susceptible
to other immoral plans, like terrorism.

/s

------
thenomad
For those who want to read her exact words, full transcript:

[http://time.com/4804640/london-attack-theresa-may-speech-
tra...](http://time.com/4804640/london-attack-theresa-may-speech-transcript-
full/)

Quote:

> We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international
> agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and
> terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce
> the risks of extremism online.

Other interesting quotes:

> "While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be
> frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to
> become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the
> public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and
> often embarrassing, conversations."

> "And if we need to increase the length of custodial sentences for terrorist-
> related offences - even apparently less serious offences - that is what we
> will do."

~~~
nilson
> We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international
> agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and
> terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce
> the risks of extremism online.

It may appear that terrorists are planning something but in reality it is
probably unplanned copy-cat behavior.

------
cantagi
Theresa May is the politician behind the nasty snoopers charter and is likely
to win the upcoming election. She is particularly dangerous to internet
freedom in the UK

~~~
Tharkun
And internet freedom in the rest of the world, by extension. If they go
through with this nonsense, a lot of EU politicians will push for similar
things, with the excuse that "if the UK can do it, why can't we?".

------
prawn
_The Prime Minister said introducing new rules for cyberspace would “deprive
the extremists of their safe spaces online” and that technology firms were not
currently doing enough._

...

 _" We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed - yet that
is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-
based services provide,” Ms May said._

Is it fair to say that the seeds for these attacks were first sown well before
the emergence of the technology companies she's criticising? I remember
reading of a private suggestion by someone in (US?) foreign affairs that this
broad wave of terrorism is "birds come home to roost".

------
jl6
I'm a bit out of the loop on these sorts of discussions so apologies if this
is retreading old ground, but... let's asssume I want to engage in some form
of population monitoring or profiling. Based purely on available facts, what
actually is the best indicator of propensity to commit terror attacks? Is it
being Muslim, spending time on Islamist websites, being a marginalized single
man, something else, or is there in fact no pattern distinguishable from
random noise?

Surely this must have been studied extensively?

------
miralabs
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence)

~~~
rocqua
"

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these
issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template
messages)

This article uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system
without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. (May
2015)

This section needs attention from an expert in Islam. (October 2015)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (October
2015)

This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its
contents. (November 2015)

"

------
sbmassey
Has she specified anywhere what 'the internet must be regulated' might mean?
There's a huge difference between having Facebook-and-Twitter type
organisations share stuff with the police, and trying to manage every possible
means of communication.

~~~
r721
I assume that's what "Tory manifesto 2017" is about?

[https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/05/tory-
manifesto...](https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/05/tory-
manifesto-2017/)

------
UK-AL
I thought the whole point of these sorts of attacks is that they arn't
organised online.

~~~
geogra4
It is. But that doesn't stop people from playing on fear to get what they
want.

------
satysin
Didn't take her long.

May seems to really hate internet freedom for some reason.

~~~
etiam
Not even a day after the killings. The opportunism is staggering.

------
lhnz
If it was possible to regulate the internet for the average person, would it
be right to regulate it?

From what I read, the police arrived within 2-5 minutes after the attack
started. The only way to pre-empt it would be to have information about the
terrorist's plans beforehand. Encryption on phones is widely available to the
average person, and this makes it very difficult to stop terrorists from
planning attacks.

In the grand scheme of things, terrorist attacks do not kill very many people.
However, they brutalise public discourse. Every time this happens it draws us
closer to authoritarianism: loss of privacy, mass internment, ethnic
cleansing. The conversation after attacks seems to be becoming more and more
sarcastic and bitter on one hand, and counter-establishment/authoritarian on
the other. For example, photos of Sadiq Khan telling the population that these
attacks are 'part and parcel' of living in a major city; and the mockery of
people saying "we don't yet know if this is a muslim".

I'm pro-free-speech and pro-encryption, but I am not sure whether grinning and
bearing it is really an effective weapon against terrorist activity,
considering its ratcheting effects on public opinion. So, if we don't ban
encryption, what are we going to do?

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> I'm free speech and pro-encryption, but I am not sure whether grinning and
bearing it is really an effective weapon against terrorist activity,
considering its ratcheting effects on public opinion. So, if we don't ban
encryption, what are we going to do?

I'm in the same position. It's getting harder to stick to my principals. The
way I'm trying to think about it though is this: banning encryption and
destroying privacy will not fix terrorism. Governments should be focusing on
actual solutions to the root cause. Maybe we should stop blowing up the
middle-east. We need to work for stability in those regions. Ban encryption
and the terrorists will find another avenue to communicate and we'll lose
freedoms for nothing.

~~~
noir_lord
I just think of this quote :-

> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
> Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Franklin

If the price for living in a free society is that the same freedoms are abused
by a vanishingly small minority of people then I'm ok with that, I'm not ok
with what those people do but I think the loss of freedom for 60m people is a
greater problem than some brainwashed idiots going on a rampage once in a
while.

~~~
lhnz
What about a loss of freedom for the 20k or so people on the terrorism
watchlist?

------
makecheck
Legislators sure seem to assume that legislation can fix anything but it’s a
dangerously ignorant attitude to have about technology. There is no single
governing body, no single country and usually not even a single _access point_
for Internet data. Even if a country seems to create what sounds like a decent
law for _that country_ , there is _no way_ to apply that law to everybody.
It’s also particularly ironic when a restriction is proposed for dealing with
people that are probably already untouchable anyway.

Also, “the Internet” is not just what you can see on a web page, and screwing
with traffic invariably damages _everything else_. (Ever see HTML returned in
places where it wasn’t supposed to be there? Thanks, ISPs.) If your law can’t
even reach the people it’s supposed to reach and your implementation is shoddy
on top of it all, you’ve just caused a problem that you didn’t have before due
to paranoia.

We should probably think of the Internet like the ocean: it connects
everybody, maybe there are areas we can control for added safety, and in the
end _we all know_ in International Waters there are some shady things going on
that we can’t do anything about. That’s life.

------
regulate_this
It's _still_ high time to withdraw any and all support from the people who
have to gain from terrorist attacks. The likes of Theresa May and the war
criminals she probably hands with, the "security industry" that is working so
hard to make the world less secure for the innocent and more secure for those
who want to hide their guilt.

Te real way to curb terrorism and other crime is to have more sane parents who
have more time for their kids, more affordable education, that sort of thing.
War, poverty, etc.; what happens today determines the tragedies of the next 30
years. We'd need to be very different, much better societies for at least a
few decades for any real change.

But the people like May don't want that. They want _more_ of what uproots us,
and they want power that can be used nilly-willy, both against criminals and
anyone else. Notice how you can't use "honest parents who give their children
hugs and answer their question" against innocents the way that "fights crime".
Don't tell me it's about resources, it's about intent which in turn results
from dysfunction and psychopathology. They need to control the narrative
because a mirror would kill them, that's the gist. Be the mirror.

~~~
rocqua
It's not just individual conditions like upbringing, poverty or education.
There is a problem with segregation. Not any form of mandated segregation, but
emergent segregation due to social constructs.

Racism, latent or otherwise, makes minorities feel more comfortable with
people of their own ethnicity. Whilst that same racism makes the majority want
to move away from the minority.

Obviously, this segregation isn't the only issue. There are more minorities
that appear to have self-segregated than just the Arabic/Muslim. In the UK,
e.g. Indians, Eastern-Europeans, perhaps black people. Those minorities seem
to have a lot fewer terrorists, if any.

------
peterwwillis
We should be regulating 2-ton steel boxes hurtling down the road 2 feet away
from pedestrians at 50mph, not the fucking internet.

~~~
vixen99
And regulating DIY stores selling knives? Our local one here could provide for
a brigade of militias. This is not the solution. I doubt the murder squad in
London thought they'd have much a chance to get away and in general these
ISIS-style assassins are fully prepared to die for their belief so how about
an examination of what that belief is, where is comes from and on what
authority? Sensitive stuff! And we can be pretty sure this won't be happening.

------
deepnet
Deliberately weaking public security is entirely the wrong approach.

Banning encrytion makes the British public more vulnerable not less.

And whitelisting all posts and uploads quells the utility of criticism,
opinion and opposition.

It seems the government don't trust the population.

Teresa May is entirely wrong in her approach and one suspects utterly ill
advised.

------
whatupmd
May's policies around the internet are boarding on authoritarian. Not sure how
you will stop people from driving cars in the capital city...

Nevertheless, its interesting to see this flame bait by independent so
quickly. Who owns that paper anyways? It has a .co.uk domain?

------
Corrado
What if the terrorists start using plain old mail? Or the telephone? Or just
meeting up in a cafe? Do all of those things need to be regulated? Should they
open everyone's mail and read it? After all, you could be writing bad words.
Should we just have everyone in the country "check in" every week to make sure
they aren't doing anything unusual? Where does it stop?

I thought the UK was very forward looking in their responses so far to the
violence. Things I've seen on TV have lead me to believe that standing up and
not being afraid is the best medicine for this type of action. Maybe I was
wrong.

------
ilanco
Theresa May should educate herself before making statements like that.

Any person with half a brain and has some knowledge about how the internet
works, knows that it's not possible to regulate it entirely.

For example, any image can be made to contain an encrypted message, without
anyone ever knowing it's there [1]. This will just be another blow to
everyone's privacy if she gets her way.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography)

------
wand3r
I'm worried AI will start killing everyone if it trains on this data. It's
going to see:

\- video games cause violence

\- the internet causes violence

\- guns cause violence

\- drugs cause violence

\- etc

And draw some conclusion like food causes terrorism. I jest; but only a bit...

~~~
trevyn
At this point, I am pretty certain that deciding to have children is
unethical, due to the various types of suffering they are nearly certain to
endure.

~~~
Bakary
I have yet to find a good answer to this argument, which is quite depressing.

------
amarant
I'm sorry to break it to you Theresa, but the internet didn't attack anyone. I
wish people didn't lose their ability to think rationally in these moments.

------
sbuk
I don't know about the internet being regulated, however it is clear to me
that our politicians idiotic utterances need a serious amount of regulating.

------
panzer_wyrm
And I thought they used a car...

She may have been a competent operative, but as a politician she is bottom of
the barrel..

------
eternalban
"New international agreements should be introduced ..."

The governing 'muppets' worldwide agree with her. The ruling clique is in
mortal fear of open communication between the global serf class. They all
agree on that, 'entertaining' muppet conflicts notwithstanding.

------
aluhut
So they exceeded all the possibilities to make "security" tighter in the UK
and now try to force their paranoia on the rest of the world?

I wonder how the internet will jump down the camera to stop a car.

------
TheCabin
Can someone explain to me why this link has such a low ranking on HN, already?
It's pretty fresh and has lots of upvotes. I was trying to post it, because I
didn't see it yet.

~~~
thesagan
I was wondering the exact same thing.

------
yarper
This is the party that is also open about wanting to ban encryption.

------
Crontab
Using "safety" as an excuse for surveillance and censorship is a popular
action from the Fascist Playbook. I just hope that those in the U.K. don't
fall for it.

------
wdr1
I fear the US isn't behind. Both Trump & Clinton called for Internet
censorship during their campaigns. Scares the crap out of me.

------
tempodox
I can't wait until AI finally deserves that name and completely replaces human
politicians. It can only be an improvement.

------
krapp
Given a choice between a free net and a failed state, I will choose the net
every time.

------
ksmsjm
So what if someone thinks that GTA multiplayer has enough ways to communicate
each other without transfering a word (for example driving a taxi means
tuesday and changing a weapon you can direct message to ceratin person in
team). This can be done in any video game that has multiplayer.

~~~
r721
Related:

[https://www.propublica.org/article/world-of-spycraft-
intelli...](https://www.propublica.org/article/world-of-spycraft-intelligence-
agencies-spied-in-online-games)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-spies-
onli...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-spies-online-games-
world-warcraft-second-life)

------
Fifer82
Can we please not vote this fucking boot back into power?

------
amriksohata
It's not the internet, internet propoganda is the final chapter in the
process, the bed of thorns is laid by the Mosques in the UK and the dumbest
ones are then influenced.

------
vorotato
I mean good luck I guess Theresa.

------
tasubotadas
Is this insight based on your sound science-backed research?

~~~
reitanqild
It is more or less obvious: everyone of these criminals belong to a very
specific subset of people.

The probability of me or any of my relatives going out and blow people up is
0.0 <lots of zeroes> x.

The probability of someone in that subset doing the same is small but
absolutely non-zero.

I feel sorry for friendly Muslims.

~~~
dorfsmay
Being Muslim is not a necessary pre-condition. A lot of Europeans and north-
American joining ISIS are not of Muslim background.

Trying to understand what leads human beings to kill and die for fuzzy causes
might help. I suspect a perfect storm of mental issues, undesirable social
status and support from the wrong people at the right time.

I also suspect we don't want all the answers, because we wouldn't want to
expose how we convince our own young military not to walk out when sent to
unjustified wars.

~~~
type0
> A lot of Europeans and north-American joining ISIS are not of Muslim
> background.

That's chocking news to me, I though you had to be a muslim to join them.

~~~
dorfsmay
They convert as they join, but a lot of them did not grow up as Muslim. Being
Muslim (as per ISIS definition of what muslim means) is part of the ISIS
rhetoric, and people convert to be part of ISIS.

OP says that only people part of "a subset of people" can be part of ISIS and
propagate terror. implying that only people who grew up as muslim can become
terrorists.

~~~
reitanqild
_implying that only people who grew up as muslim can become terrorists._

OP here. I did not say that.

~~~
dorfsmay
OK. So what "subset of people" then?

~~~
reitanqild
>>>implying that only people who grew up as muslim can become terrorists.

>>OP here. I did not say that.

>OK. So what "subset of people" then?

Two corrections:

You talk like I mean general terrorists.

I'm talking only about the types of attacks we are talking about in this
thread (attacks primarily target against civilians by attackers that do not
expect or even attempt to get away alive).

It is written above: "everyone of _these_ criminals belong to a very specific
subset of people." (emphasis added).

>So what "subset of people" then?

Only the subset that are or are about to become muslims.

Again, until someone enlightens me I have yet to be aware of any of _this_
kind of attacks by neither Christians nor Atheists.

