AdamzB Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 It's being reported that Facebook failed to report graphic and emotive' posts from Michael Adebowale. Interesting how this has come to light just before new measures to tackle terrorism are to be published by Theresa May. The sooner these 'social media' companies are made to stop turning a blind eye the better.
dwhyte85 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Yes, but both of the killers were on watchlists... they can't use FB as the scapegoat on this one. Agreed the social sites could do more to help, but these guys were on the radar already.
X-13 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 It's being reported that Facebook failed to report graphic and emotive' posts from Michael Adebowale. Were they actually reported to Facebook, though? If they weren't, then this is an obvious manipulation.
Popular Post localzuk Posted November 26, 2014 Popular Post Posted November 26, 2014 Really @AdamzB? You think Social Media companies are the right people to be deciding which posts to report? The stuff posted on these sites are the equivalent of having a chat in the pub. All sorts of nonsense gets posted all the time. We don't need more of a police state, it is just not necessary. The security services already had their eyes on these 2 guys. The failure was with them, plain and simple. They didn't need any extra powers to deal with them. I keep saying this but we are putting an awful lot of effort into "terrorism" when it kills so few people. Yet things that kill more people daily are treated to a teeth sucking and a "that's terrible" but that's the end of it. Things like domestic violence where 2 women a week are killed by their partner in the UK. The amount of air-time and money being focused on this problem is disproportionate to its effects. Not to mention, it aids it as well - the more air-time given to "look, look! The terrorists did this!" just helps them succeed in their goals. 11
dwhyte85 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Really @AdamzB? You think Social Media companies are the right people to be deciding which posts to report? The stuff posted on these sites are the equivalent of having a chat in the pub. All sorts of nonsense gets posted all the time. If someone states i'm going to go kill a soldier, blow up a building... I think they do have a right, even if it's facebook crapchat, it might not be - how do you know? EDIT: Do due diligence, report it, make it the police/authority decision whether to act on it - my opinion. Edited November 26, 2014 by dwhyte85
X-13 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Things like domestic violence where 2 women a week are killed by their partner in the UK. [Citation needed]
localzuk Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 If someone states i'm going to go kill a soldier, blow up a building... I think they do have a right, even if it's facebook crapchat, it might not be - how do you know? EDIT: Do due diligence, report it, make it the police/authority decision whether to act on it - my opinion. I dunno, I don't want random corporations to be involved in policing. In this case, the security services should have had their accounts under observation via existing laws, so Facebook would've had nothing to do except hand over data per a warrant granted by a judge. You're giving up an awful lot of freedom for relatively little protection. If every idiotic comment on Facebook were referred to the authorities, they'd be inundated and it'd render the whole lot useless.
localzuk Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 [Citation needed] Let me google that for you Anyway, it'd have to be fewer than 4.2 per year to match the UK deaths from terrorists since 2000.
X-13 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Let me google that for you Anyway, it'd have to be fewer than 4.2 per year to match the UK deaths from terrorists since 2000. You realise that's one step above "it's not my job to educate you". YOU made the claim. YOU provide evidence. Le EDIT: Checked it out here Source for the claim: Homicide Statistics, 1998 Spoilers. It's not 1998 any more. Edited November 26, 2014 by X-13
dwhyte85 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 I dunno, I don't want random corporations to be involved in policing. In this case, the security services should have had their accounts under observation via existing laws, so Facebook would've had nothing to do except hand over data per a warrant granted by a judge. You're giving up an awful lot of freedom for relatively little protection. If every idiotic comment on Facebook were referred to the authorities, they'd be inundated and it'd render the whole lot useless. Flipside, do nothing and get these reports back blaming them. Like you say, if they had lots of these reports they'd then have to sift and that'd make it as hard to determine what is a threat and what is fbcrapchat. In this case they already had intel on these guys... just feels like the government trying to blame someone.
localzuk Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) You realise that's one step above "it's not my job to educate you". YOU made the claim. YOU provide evidence. Le EDIT: Checked it out here Source for the claim: Homicide Statistics, 1998 Spoilers. It's not 1998 any more. This is NOT the thread for this. Sorry, but its infuriating. The stats are actual stats. Even if they've dropped by 95% (which they haven't), they still out do the deaths from terrorism in this country (which IS what I was pointing out). Does this hammer the point home better? All checkable, all verifiable. 2013 | Karen Ingala Smith (Not all the women killed are due to domestic violence, but a high proportion). Flipside, do nothing and get these reports back blaming them. The reports are just politicking. Theresa May is obsessed with pushing through snooping laws, so anything and everything she can throw at it is being thrown. Edited November 26, 2014 by localzuk 1
Sdrawkcab Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 You realise that's one step above "it's not my job to educate you". YOU made the claim. YOU provide evidence. Le EDIT: Checked it out here Source for the claim: Homicide Statistics, 1998 Spoilers. It's not 1998 any more. Oh okay, I guess we just won't worry about the women getting beaten to death by their husbands then? Honestly, do you just feel the need to take up a position like this in every discussion thread? Does pedantry on this level make you feel good about yourself or something? You've contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion except to make people annoyed at you.
X-13 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Oh okay, I guess we just won't worry about the women getting beaten to death by their husbands then? That's a nice strawman you have there. Also: Fallacy of relative privation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And I'm out. This is why I can't stand the social justice squad. Disagree with something [of simply don't 100% agree] and all you get are ad-homs. Edited November 26, 2014 by X-13
Sdrawkcab Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 That's a nice strawman you have there. Also: Fallacy of relative privation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And I'm out. This is why I can't stand the social justice squad. Disagree with something [of simply don't 100% agree] and all you get are ad-homs. The issue is not what you said, it's where and when you said it. Sorry if you can't see that, I guess.
witch Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) @X-13 You do come over as a little bit pedantic and picky sometimes. You know that @localzuk's point is that we seem to care more about terrorism and yet there are more deaths from other causes that we are not seemingly not so concerned about. Even if his figures are old his point about the concentration of resources on terrorism is unreasonable. He could just talk about "other deaths from domestic or gang violence, child murder or cyclist deaths" and his point would be made. However, let us return to the topic please. I agree - this is a charter for snooping. Facebook could have more sniffers though that pick up specific words and then just send that to the authorities. But I agree, it is like a chat down the pub and how long is it going to be before we are punished for something we said there. Same with Twitter - those people who say awful things are the scum of the earth but I don't think prosecuting them is the way to go. Edited November 26, 2014 by witch
hardtailstar Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Things like domestic violence where 2 women a week are killed by their partner in the UK. Can we just call it domestic violence between partners where men and women get killed..... 2
localzuk Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 I should've gone with cyclist deaths. They've gone up in the last 2 years (especially in London), as the government has *cut* funding for cycle safety schemes! Its completely unbalanced.
sonofsanta Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 The timing of this discussion does seem very convenient given what May was announcing a couple of days ago, doesn't it? The response to terrorism is hugely disproportonate; from a Needs of the Many standpoint, most of the money we invest into security should go into driver education and medical research. As a side benefit, ignoring terrorism would take away it's raison d'être and undermine it. But people are emotional, not logical, and they think "well, I'll never have a crash, I'm too good a driver" because they feel they can do something about it, yet they live in fear of terrorism because it's out of their hands. It's the same reason people are scared of flying not driving, even though statistically the drive to the airport is more dangerous - because if something happens on a plane, you've got no ability to do anything; it's falling out the sky and that's all there is to it. 2
Theblacksheep Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 They had appeared on many lists, security services have the tools and means if they want to do anything. Maybe they are sifting through too many normal peoples emails/text and data to target the people they need. Maybe they have too much data. The government using an event to justify more draconian powers. Well. I. Never.
mthomas08 Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Were they actually reported to Facebook, though? If they weren't, then this is an obvious manipulation. Have to say I completely agree on this one. We all know how difficult it is to police systems like email. Although our level is not terror it's more bullying there has been cases where severity has been higher than bullying. Even if you have filtering/scanning running we all know how to bypass systems like that, especially when text speak can avoid that. I do agree that social networking sites should do more but they are not responsible for the security of the country. I was watching the news last night and it was a politician throwing those arguments and we all know they are clued up on technology... We also know that they are quick to take the blame... I think as always lessons are to be learnt.
jamesb Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 I just can't understand how capturing all this data will in any way help to catch people. It's useful for data mining, yes, but in order to mine you need to know what you're looking for. If someone's already under surveillance then they are already under surveillance - having the traffic from 60 million other users doesn't help that surveillance in any way. Or to put it another way, online behaviour is only a facet of someone's behaviour and will often be a small one. Even in IT security people are rarely picked up because of any network monitoring - they're picked up because of other behaviours that reveal their actions and then network monitoring (with full sign-off from legal according to company policies) is instigated to gather evidence. This works just fine. Capturing everyone's data does absolutely nothing to enhance this, and attempts to do so only drive investment in privacy technologies (so I suppose there is one positive effect from it all).
JRowley Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Facebook is hardly to blame for this, the killers were on various intelligence agency watch lists. If they didn't bother to request Facebook give them information then they aren't going to get it, Facebook can't monitor over 1 billion members and their activities to that degree, imagine the uproar that would cause. They are just trying to pin it on someone else, as per the norm when Gov. screws up.
eyetea Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 I find it impossible to believe if they do start snooping it will be 100% for legitimate purposes and as witch has said where will it end? How long before it's in pubs etc? Was it 1984 where they couldn't turn the TV off and it had a camera / microphone in it? 1
jamesb Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Was it 1984 where they couldn't turn the TV off and it had a camera / microphone in it? Nah, the XBox One and Amazon Fire TV came out long after 1984.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now