In the wake of a terrorist attack on the streets of London
which resulted in seven fatalities, UK prime minister Theresa May said the
threat of "Islamist extremism" could no longer be given the
"safe space it needs to breed", appearing to single out tech firms
for aiding terror groups.
"We need to
work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that
regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism
planning," May said, adding: "We need to do everything we can at home
to reduce the risks of extremism online."
As the dust
settled on the weekend (3 June) incident which left dozens the public injured,
some critical, the Telegraph newspaper reported police had uncovered a
"YouTube link" while probing the attack.
One source said
the attackers, three men, had been "radicalised" by videos on the
Google-owned platform.
The
publication also said the Islamic State-inspired cell used YouTube to plot the
van and knife attack in London.
Is
this one example of Theresa May's safe spaces? Or, as one cybersecurity expert noted on Twitter, is it simply an evolution
of the "violence is caused by playing video games" excuse?
Technology
giants like Facebook and Twitter have long faced accusations of protecting
terrorists' communications by offering end-to-end encrypted apps such as
WhatsApp and iMessage. Of course a balance is needed, without encryption the
entire security of the web would crumble.
So
what exactly are these 'safe spaces', the dark corners of the internet, and can
they be stopped?
Encrypted messaging apps
One
of the UK government's biggest annoyances over the past few years has been the
rise of smartphone and tablet applications promising strong user privacy and
encryption.
Essentially,
such technology protects the content of messages while in transit and at both
end-points, making sure it cannot be intercepted by anyone (sometimes including
those conducting bulk communications collection, like British intelligence).
The
apps frequently singled out are WhatsApp, iMessage, Skype, Signal and Telegram.
In some cases, terrorists have used these to communicate - but the issue
is complex. As Ars Technica noted, in light of
recent attacks it may be more effective to ban cars than technology.
Echoing
May's latest comments, current UK home secretary Amber Rudd previously told Andrew Marr on the subject
of encryption: "We need to make sure organisations like WhatsApp, and
there are plenty of others, don't provide a secret place for terrorists to
communicate with each other."
This
was one of the controversial aspects of the UK's Investigatory Powers Bill. Cybersecurity
experts – and tech firms – have long argued that breaking strong encryption
would cause significant problems, leaving communications of all users at risk
of snooping on a massive scale
Social media companies
Some
of the biggest companies in the world – Google, Facebook and Twitter included -
operate large social networks with encrypted chat services built-in. This has
ensured high-level executives of such firms are routinely slammed for allegedly
aiding the spread of terrorist propaganda.
Groups
can use websites to share plans of attack, spread misinformation or recruit
members to their cause. Telegram is one of the main social media methods often
used to spread "official" Isis news. Twitter recently ramped up
action, suspending more than 360,000 pro-terror accounts.
After
the London attacks, Facebook's director of policy Simon Milner responded:
"We want Facebook to be a hostile environment for terrorists."
Indeed, the firm enabled its "Safety Check" feature on the night of
the attack, letting those in the area notify friends and family they were
alive.
A
Google spokesperson said: "We employ thousands of people and invest
hundreds of millions of pounds to fight abuse on our platforms and ensure we are
part of the solution to addressing these challenges." The firm asserted it
is already working with "industry colleagues" on the matter.
"Privacy
and security are often pitted against one another in an eternal tug of war.
This is perhaps one of the most complex and ethically delicate paradoxes facing
our world today," said Andrew Clarke, a director at One Identity, an
enterprise focused cybersecurity firm.
"There
is no right answer and each government and its citizens must decide at each
point in time what is right for its situation," he continued.
"What's
most disappointing is that we live in a world where we have to make these
decisions."
The Dark Web and Tor Network
Notoriously
difficult to police, the Dark Web, accessible via Tor ("The
Onion Router"), lets users access the internet anonymously and
stay relatively hidden from authorities by pinging a user's traditionally
unique IP address to multiple locations around the world.
The
dark web is used by dissidents, journalists and those living in repressive
regimes to gain access to the internet safely. Unfortunately, it has a major
crime problem and is also used to host marketplaces which sell everything from
drugs to firearms to hacked databases or computer viruses.
In
2015, it emerged the UK had a taskforce set up to dismantle criminal operations
on the network designed in collaboration with the GCHQ and the National Crime
Agency (NCA). Catching criminals here requires significant operational
resources, something the UK police is reportedly lacking.
"It
was only a matter of time before politicians started spouting nonsense about
the relationship between extremism and the internet," Lee Munson,
researcher with Comparitech, told IBTimes UK.
He
added: "The assertion that tech companies are in some way facilitating
terrorism by not removing content in a timely manner overlooks the fact that
automated methods of doing just that are not entirely accurate and human
review, cost aside, is a time-consuming process.
"While
online hate speech and the promotion of terrorism on the web are both in need
of curtailment, knee-jerk reactions from politicians without technical
experience are not the answer."
Ultimately, it
remains unclear what May's criteria describes a "safe space".
No comments:
Post a Comment