Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I believe it's clear from the context of his post he means the former. We obviously need to clamp down on radicalisation and extremism but we should perverse our own freedoms whilst doing so, i.e I don't think we should ban end-to-end encryption or force companies to build a 'back door' in.
He is certainly right we should not give the terrorists the war they want. They broadly want to provoke a clash of civilizations and turn this into the West vs them. There are of course some Britain First types who want such a war as well.
I'm not sure what the answer is ultimately but for all the tough talk from some I don't think I am alone in that. It's also a problem elsewhere. After all there have been far-right attacks that seem to have, in part, been inspired from the Internet as well.
|
I agree: banning end-to-end encryption and/or introducing NSA-style "back doors" would be a disaster for all sort of reasons not least that these "secret & secure" Government access paths invariably get leaked and so get used by the hacking & malware criminals against us.
If you listened to the Sam Harris podcast I posted a while back, in which he analyses the ISIS on-line news feeds and concludes that they don't actually care that we did or did not bomb their lands (although they do use this as fuel in their radicalisation process). They hate us because of what and who we are. We can stop bombing in Syria, etc. and they will still hate us.