This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/13/theresa-may-tech-companies-censor-terrorists
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Theresa May wants tech companies to censor terrorists, but will they play ball? | Theresa May wants tech companies to censor terrorists, but will they play ball? |
| (21 days later) | |
| The British prime minster Theresa May is expected to renew her long-running campaign against technology companies by announcing international sanctions for those that fail to take sufficient action against terrorist propaganda, in a joint statement with French president Emmanuel Macron. | The British prime minster Theresa May is expected to renew her long-running campaign against technology companies by announcing international sanctions for those that fail to take sufficient action against terrorist propaganda, in a joint statement with French president Emmanuel Macron. |
| The two leaders, meeting in Paris on Tuesday, will discuss creating a legal requirement for technology companies to aid in the fight against terrorism online and reportedly face fines for failing to comply, in the wake of a series of attacks in the UK and France over the past year. | The two leaders, meeting in Paris on Tuesday, will discuss creating a legal requirement for technology companies to aid in the fight against terrorism online and reportedly face fines for failing to comply, in the wake of a series of attacks in the UK and France over the past year. |
| It is not yet clear what form those requirements may take, but May has led calls for firms to be more proactive in finding and taking down terrorist propaganda and other materials, wherever they are found on the net, from videos on Google’s YouTube to Twitter accounts and search results. | It is not yet clear what form those requirements may take, but May has led calls for firms to be more proactive in finding and taking down terrorist propaganda and other materials, wherever they are found on the net, from videos on Google’s YouTube to Twitter accounts and search results. |
| All major technology companies already voluntarily enforce a number of rules against terrorist propaganda. In a series of leaked documents, the Guardian revealed how Facebook bans “support, praise or representation” of terror groups and sharing of images with no context but it allows posts with neutral or condemning content. | All major technology companies already voluntarily enforce a number of rules against terrorist propaganda. In a series of leaked documents, the Guardian revealed how Facebook bans “support, praise or representation” of terror groups and sharing of images with no context but it allows posts with neutral or condemning content. |
| The disagreement with politicians comes over where to draw the line: in a fiery debate in March, for instance, home affairs committee chair Yvette Cooper described YouTube’s enforcement of its community standards as “a joke”, and said that Twitter and Facebook were too slow to deal with hate-filled content. | The disagreement with politicians comes over where to draw the line: in a fiery debate in March, for instance, home affairs committee chair Yvette Cooper described YouTube’s enforcement of its community standards as “a joke”, and said that Twitter and Facebook were too slow to deal with hate-filled content. |
| But when it comes to dealing with specific national legislation around illegal content, technology firms have shown willingness to comply. In Germany, for instance, local laws against Nazi imagery and holocaust denial are enforced by Google and Facebook – although Facebook doesn’t enforce similar laws in 10 other countries. | But when it comes to dealing with specific national legislation around illegal content, technology firms have shown willingness to comply. In Germany, for instance, local laws against Nazi imagery and holocaust denial are enforced by Google and Facebook – although Facebook doesn’t enforce similar laws in 10 other countries. |
| The big question for technology firms will be the extent to which any legal liability creates a requirement for them to pro-actively seek out and remove illegal content. While they are only required to respond to content flagged up by others, be they government agencies or individual users, it remains possible to economically respond to legislation by shifting the priorities of existing moderators. But a more active requirement could rapidly become logistically unfeasible for companies like YouTube, which sees 300 hours of content uploaded every minute. | The big question for technology firms will be the extent to which any legal liability creates a requirement for them to pro-actively seek out and remove illegal content. While they are only required to respond to content flagged up by others, be they government agencies or individual users, it remains possible to economically respond to legislation by shifting the priorities of existing moderators. But a more active requirement could rapidly become logistically unfeasible for companies like YouTube, which sees 300 hours of content uploaded every minute. |
| The other area May and Macron may want technology companies to address is encryption. In her time as home secretary, May opposed the free availability of end-to-end encryption, a technology that allows users to send messages that cannot be read by an eavesdropper intercepting their communications. It’s built in to most major communications platforms, including Apple’s iMessage, Facebook’s Messenger and WhatsApp, and Google’s Allo, as well as smaller services that explicitly advertise themselves as secure communications platforms such as Telegram and Signal. | The other area May and Macron may want technology companies to address is encryption. In her time as home secretary, May opposed the free availability of end-to-end encryption, a technology that allows users to send messages that cannot be read by an eavesdropper intercepting their communications. It’s built in to most major communications platforms, including Apple’s iMessage, Facebook’s Messenger and WhatsApp, and Google’s Allo, as well as smaller services that explicitly advertise themselves as secure communications platforms such as Telegram and Signal. |
| The UK has already legislated in this area with the Investigatory Powers Act which includes a measure allowing the home secretary to demand communications providers remove any “electronic protection” applied to messages. The clause has been widely interpreted as requiring technology companies to weaken their encryption at the state’s request – but no such order is believed to have been filed yet, and it is doubtful whether the technology companies would roll over and comply, or fight the requirements to the bitter end. | The UK has already legislated in this area with the Investigatory Powers Act which includes a measure allowing the home secretary to demand communications providers remove any “electronic protection” applied to messages. The clause has been widely interpreted as requiring technology companies to weaken their encryption at the state’s request – but no such order is believed to have been filed yet, and it is doubtful whether the technology companies would roll over and comply, or fight the requirements to the bitter end. |
| Despite the perception that technology firms ride roughshod over national rules and regulations, in practice they often end up happy to seek a compromise. The right to be forgotten rulings in Europe, censorship of search results in China, blocking of social media accounts in Turkey and banning of holocaust denial in Germany all stand as examples of major US technology firms’ willingness to play by the rules to retain access to large overseas markets. The question for governments, then, isn’t whether they can compel co-operation, but whether doing so will actually prevent the spread of terror. | Despite the perception that technology firms ride roughshod over national rules and regulations, in practice they often end up happy to seek a compromise. The right to be forgotten rulings in Europe, censorship of search results in China, blocking of social media accounts in Turkey and banning of holocaust denial in Germany all stand as examples of major US technology firms’ willingness to play by the rules to retain access to large overseas markets. The question for governments, then, isn’t whether they can compel co-operation, but whether doing so will actually prevent the spread of terror. |