Cook, tech execs to meet with White House on terrorists' use of social media

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple CEO Tim Cook and a host of tech industry executives will meet with White House officials on Friday to explore ways in which terrorist activity on social media and other online arenas can be hindered or countered.




According to BuzzFeed News, Cook will join representatives from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and other influential Silicon Valley players as part of a summit in San Jose, Calif., to discuss how each company might best leverage their respective online platforms to combat terrorists' use of social media as a recruitment tool. News of the upcoming summit was first reported by Reuters.

"The White House sees Silicon Valley as an integral part of fighting the propaganda from ISIL and other groups," an unnamed White House official told BuzzFeed News. "There needs to be a concerted effort to fight the ISIL propaganda."

While the list of tech executives attending tomorrow's meeting has not been revealed, sources informed Reuters that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers will be present.

The session comes after deadly attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., sparked debate on the role social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook, as well as encrypted messaging services similar to those offered by Apple and Google, play in terrorist recruitment, organization, planning and propaganda operations. Specifically, some have assigned partial blame on the tech industry for allowing contentious content to propagate online.

The democratization of high-tech communications hardware and services is a double-edged sword in that allowing consumer access to such assets inherently grants nefarious agents the same freedoms. For its part, companies like Twitter and Facebook enforce strict codes of conduct prohibiting terrorist activity.

Speaking on the topic of consumer protection against government surveillance, Cook has come down hard on agencies calling for softer encryption methods. According to Cook, removing Apple's existing strong encryption safeguards would not be of any benefit, and could do more harm than good.

"Terrorists will encrypt. They know what to do," Cook said in a February interview. "If we don't encrypt, the people we affect [by cracking down on privacy] are the good people. They are the 99.999 percent of people who are good." He added, "You don't want to eliminate everyone's privacy. If you do, you not only don't solve the terrorist issue but you also take away something that is a human right. The consequences of doing that are very significant."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    BuzzdBuzzd Posts: 1member
    Apple already knows how to defeat our adversaries on their own.  Take China for example.  Remember when they were really mean, and we didn't have anything to do with them?  Well, after Apple sent them millions of Jobs (hi Steve, rip) that Americans could and should be doing, they got real nice.  Right?  So, all that Tim Cook has to do is to find a really nice place where wages are at the slave level and there is none of that darn environmental responsibility stuff to worry about, but is controlled by ISIS.  They will be so glad to have those American Jobs that they'll just get to work on the latest piece of iJUNK and stop killing everyone.  You know I'm right.  If it works with Commies, it will work with Terrists.  Right?  I know that was helpful.
    h4y3s
  • Reply 2 of 23
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,237member
    Someone has to protect us from big government, so it might as well be Cook.  I reckon I am a lot more at risk from the dead hand of government than some terrorist.  There are a hell of a lot more establishment totalitarians than there are nut jobs.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,015member
    Based on the attendee list I'd imagine topics like government directed content filtering, information suppression, censorship, counter propaganda, counter attacks, backdoor spying taps, and disrupting the communication infrastructure that undesirable actors are using to convey their messages are all on the table. Sadly, this all seems like yet another endless game of whack-a-mole since it's only dealing with symptoms and not with the root cause of the problem.
  • Reply 4 of 23
    damonfdamonf Posts: 223member
    Buzzd said:
    Apple already knows how to defeat our adversaries on their own.  Take China for example.  Remember when they were really mean, and we didn't have anything to do with them?  Well, after Apple sent them millions of Jobs (hi Steve, rip) that Americans could and should be doing, they got real nice.  Right?  So, all that Tim Cook has to do is to find a really nice place where wages are at the slave level and there is none of that darn environmental responsibility stuff to worry about, but is controlled by ISIS.  They will be so glad to have those American Jobs that they'll just get to work on the latest piece of iJUNK and stop killing everyone.  You know I'm right.  If it works with Commies, it will work with Terrists.  Right?  I know that was helpful.


    It's not logical to believe that Apple's iPhone manufacturing jobs are somehow pacifying China.  Have you not noticed how their military has participated in industrial espionage / hacking of major U.S. and European corporations, and that they are creating man-made islands in the South China Seas to stake a territorial claim on open waters?  Apple also had to put an iCloud farm in China so that data of Chinese citizens stayed in China.  No, China is very much not pacified by iPhone manufacturing jobs.  And why do you think Tim Cook and Apple are really not pro-environmental responsibility?  You don't seem to have your facts straight.

  • Reply 5 of 23
    Seriously, We need to be much more concerned about this Government invading our PRIVACY!
    SpamSandwichtallest skil
  • Reply 6 of 23
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    It's not the job of private US businesses to do the dirty work of any government. Their responsibility is to their shareholders and customers and they must obey the laws as much as possible to protect their business interests (as laws are a constantly shifting minefield).
    latifbptallest skil
  • Reply 7 of 23
    Buzzd said:
    that Americans could and should be doing
    Yeah, just like they're all lining up to pick produce because horrible Mexicans took those jobs away from them.
    jony0
  • Reply 8 of 23
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    How does Apple's encryption have anything to do with social media recruitment? Apple has nothing to do with other social media companies servers
  • Reply 9 of 23
    alruialrui Posts: 29member
    If this use of "social media" was really a problem it could be easily shut down in those countries where its an issue or across the board no problem but its not going on! This is just another lie to push Apple, etc. to get on board with the governments plan to spy on US!
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 10 of 23
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    Buzzd said:
    that Americans could and should be doing
    Yeah, just like they're all lining up to pick produce because horrible Mexicans took those jobs away from them.
    A lot depends on the availability of an adequately skilled labor force and is it inexpensive enough. The development of complicated technological production methods is not always cost effective. If the official minimum wage is too high, then the producers might invest in robotic/automated production and no one will have a job. Even the so called white collar jobs could be in jeopardy as well, for example legal aids who do nothing but review documents and contract to look for fine print that could impact business decisions. With technology this could be done better and cheaper than using humans. Hell, a computer could probably do Tim Cook's job even better than he can.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member

    alrui said:
    If this use of "social media" was really a problem it could be easily shut down in those countries where its an issue or across the board no problem but its not going on! This is just another lie to push Apple, etc. to get on board with the governments plan to spy on US!
    There will always be some third party app that offers encryption, like WhatsApp. Unless Android goes full curated app store, there is no way to stop terrorist recruitment. They have their own encryption. They only use traditional social media as an initial communication. Once the discussion gets more serious, they switch to private encrypted apps. The only way to stop the recruitment of young disillusioned, vulnerable people is through education and opportunity. Someone who has a bright future would never become a suicide bomber. 
  • Reply 12 of 23
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    volcan said:

    alrui said:
    If this use of "social media" was really a problem it could be easily shut down in those countries where its an issue or across the board no problem but its not going on! This is just another lie to push Apple, etc. to get on board with the governments plan to spy on US!
    There will always be some third party app that offers encryption, like WhatsApp. Unless Android goes full curated app store, there is no way to stop terrorist recruitment. They have their own encryption. They only use traditional social media as an initial communication. Once the discussion gets more serious, they switch to private encrypted apps. The only way to stop the recruitment of young disillusioned, vulnerable people is through education and opportunity. Someone who has a bright future would never become a suicide bomber. 
    They are willing to commit these acts because they are convinced they will go to paradise. Until their entire belief system tells them otherwise, these things will not stop.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 13 of 23
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    volcan said:

    There will always be some third party app that offers encryption, like WhatsApp. Unless Android goes full curated app store, there is no way to stop terrorist recruitment. They have their own encryption. They only use traditional social media as an initial communication. Once the discussion gets more serious, they switch to private encrypted apps. The only way to stop the recruitment of young disillusioned, vulnerable people is through education and opportunity. Someone who has a bright future would never become a suicide bomber. 
    They are willing to commit these acts because they are convinced they will go to paradise. Until their entire belief system tells them otherwise, these things will not stop.
    Sure, but you don't see any Islamic doctors, scientists or businessmen becoming jihadists. The young people who are being brainwashed don't have a belief system yet or any future goals which is what makes them vulnerable. The ISIL leaders don't believe that BS about 50 virgins any more than you and I do. They just use it as a tool to radicalize young people. The leaders aren't all that anxious to get to paradise themselves. They are interested in becoming wealthy and powerful just like everyone else, but their methods are perverted and evil.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 14 of 23
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    volcan said:
    They are willing to commit these acts because they are convinced they will go to paradise. Until their entire belief system tells them otherwise, these things will not stop.
    Sure, but you don't see any Islamic doctors, scientists or businessmen becoming jihadists. The young people who are being brainwashed don't have a belief system yet which is what makes them vulnerable.
    IMO, religions in general are a hazard to rational thought but I have no interest in banning religions. People are free to believe whatever they like. When someone acts out violently in support of that belief, that's a problem.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 15 of 23
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    volcan said:
    Sure, but you don't see any Islamic doctors, scientists or businessmen becoming jihadists. The young people who are being brainwashed don't have a belief system yet which is what makes them vulnerable.
    IMO, religions in general are a hazard to rational thought but I have no interest in banning religions. People are free to believe whatever they like. When someone acts out violently in support of that belief, that's a problem.
    I agree with you about Islam being a violent religion which is predicated on killing everyone else including other sects of Islam, but USA law does not provide for deporting them or banning them like some would like, such as Trump supporters. It would be very difficult to amend the constitution to disallow freedom of religion, because that is one of the principle tenants in the founding of the nation.

    Islam is not going to throw out their Quran any more than Christians would throw out their Bible. The difference is, the New Testament part of the Bible forbids violence against anyone, for any reason, unlike the Quran which compels Muslims to kill all non-muslims. Because the USA was founded as a Christian nation, much of their religious ethics have been inherited, even by those Americans who do not technically belong to a Christian church or believe in their fundamental doctrine.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the golden rule, but that would seem to be in direct conflict with the USA philosophy, primarily that of the Republicans, to bomb them back to the stone age.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 16 of 23
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    volcan said:
    IMO, religions in general are a hazard to rational thought but I have no interest in banning religions. People are free to believe whatever they like. When someone acts out violently in support of that belief, that's a problem.
    I agree with you about Islam being a violent religion which is predicated on killing everyone else including other sects of Islam, but USA law does not provide for deporting them or banning them like some would like, such as Trump supporters. It would be very difficult to amend the constitution to disallow freedom of religion, because that is one of the principle tenants in the founding of the nation.

    Islam is not going to throw out their Quran any more than Christians would throw out their Bible. The difference is, that the New Testament part of the Bible forbids violence against anyone, for any reason, unlike the Quran which compels Muslims to kill all atheists and non-muslims. Because the USA was founded as a Christian nation, much of their religious ethics have been inherited, even by those Americans who do not technically belong to a Christian church or believe in their fundamental doctrine.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the golden rule, but that would seem to be in direct conflict with the USA philosophy, primarily that of the Republicans, to bomb them back to the stone age.
    As far as I know, Trump is not saying and has not said anything about deporting or "banning" Muslims. He said something along the lines that Muslims should be barred from entry into the US until 'someone figures out what the hell is going on'. Barring any non-US citizens from entry to the US is within the powers of the US government.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 17 of 23
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    As far as I know, Trump is not saying and has not said anything about deporting or "banning" Muslims.
    No, to my knowledge, Trump did not say anything about deporting them, but that is most likely what his supporters would prefer. Just ask any angry working class white male.

    He said something along the lines that Muslims should be barred from entry into the US until 'someone figures out what the hell is going on'. 

    The word 'Until' practically translates into 'Forever' because we've already figured out what the 'hell is going on'. The Quran compels Muslims to kill all non-muslims.

    Barring any non-US citizens from entry to the US is within the powers of the US government.
    Denying someone a visa for the reason of being Muslim is not consistent with the USA constitution. Besides there is no litmus test which proves that someone is a Muslim or not. Barring them provides only very limited protection, as we have recently seen in the USA, France and other westernized countries, regarding terrorism by natural born citizens who have become radicalized Muslims.

  • Reply 18 of 23
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    volcan said:
    I agree with you about Islam being a violent religion which is predicated on killing everyone else including other sects of Islam, but USA law does not provide for deporting them or banning them like some would like, such as Trump supporters. It would be very difficult to amend the constitution to disallow freedom of religion, because that is one of the principle tenants in the founding of the nation.

    Islam is not going to throw out their Quran any more than Christians would throw out their Bible. The difference is, that the New Testament part of the Bible forbids violence against anyone, for any reason, unlike the Quran which compels Muslims to kill all atheists and non-muslims. Because the USA was founded as a Christian nation, much of their religious ethics have been inherited, even by those Americans who do not technically belong to a Christian church or believe in their fundamental doctrine.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the golden rule, but that would seem to be in direct conflict with the USA philosophy, primarily that of the Republicans, to bomb them back to the stone age.
    As far as I know, Trump is not saying and has not said anything about deporting or "banning" Muslims. He said something along the lines that Muslims should be barred from entry into the US until 'someone figures out what the hell is going on'. Barring any non-US citizens from entry to the US is within the powers of the US government.



    You really think that doesn't mean "not banning them", it's exactly what it means and if you ask his supporters, that's how they heard it absolutely unanimously.

    Considering the huge proportion of US born muslim that are citizens (as most of the French attackers were) and the fact that religion is protected in the US constitution, he clearly knows what he's saying has no chance in hell; but, hey he doesn't care, as long as it inflames the base...

    In our Canada, the two latest attacks were done by born Canadians with one parent arab, the other caucasian that were recently radicalized and were both mentally ill!.

    Isis preys on the mentally ill, the disenfrenchised, etc; making them more isolated (even if they are citizens), is the opposite of what needs to be done to prevent radicalization.

    Everything Trump says is "easy" solutions to very very complicated problems. Defining a scapegoat as a source of all problems.
    Someone who that cast out would solve everything, make everything better. Keeping the whole world, modernity, change at bay solves everything (sic).

    That's how populists always do it; so, he's using age old tactics known since forever in political discourse.

    BTW, I wonder if people discussing here have actually talked, acquainted an actual Muslim, been to the middle east?
    The amount of total repulsive BS being peddle is off the chart!
    Seems borrowed from Trump's and Fox's and the GOP's talking points.
    edited January 2016 muppetry
  • Reply 19 of 23
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    foggyhill said:
    As far as I know, Trump is not saying and has not said anything about deporting or "banning" Muslims. He said something along the lines that Muslims should be barred from entry into the US until 'someone figures out what the hell is going on'. Barring any non-US citizens from entry to the US is within the powers of the US government.



    You really think that doesn't mean "not banning them", it's exactly what it means and if you ask his supporters, that's how they heard it absolutely unanimously.

    Considering the huge proportion of US born muslim that are citizens (as most of the French attackers were) and the fact that religion is protected in the US constitution, he clearly knows what he's saying has no chance in hell; but, hey he doesn't care, as long as it inflames the base...

    In our Canada, the two latest attacks were done by born Canadians with one parent arab, the other caucasian that were recently radicalized and were both mentally ill!.

    Isis preys on the mentally ill, the disenfrenchised, etc; making them more isolated (even if they are citizens), is the opposite of what needs to be done to prevent radicalization.

    Everything Trump says is "easy" solutions to very very complicated problems. Defining a scapegoat as a source of all problems.
    Someone who that cast out would solve everything, make everything better. Keeping the whole world, modernity, change at bay solves everything (sic).

    That's how populists always do it; so, he's using age old tactics known since forever in political discourse.

    BTW, I wonder if people discussing here have actually talked, acquainted an actual Muslim, been to the middle east?
    The amount of total repulsive BS being peddle is off the chart!
    Seems borrowed from Trump's and Fox's and the GOP's talking points.
    I know and have known Muslims. Never had any issues with any of them, although one person I did have some rather spririted discussions about religion. None of our conversations ever ended in violence or screaming and I don't hesitate to mention that I've also had lengthy peaceful discussions with other people about the underpinnings of their religious beliefs.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 20 of 23
    volcan said:
    IMO, religions in general are a hazard to rational thought but I have no interest in banning religions. People are free to believe whatever they like. When someone acts out violently in support of that belief, that's a problem.
    I agree with you about Islam being a violent religion which is predicated on killing everyone else including other sects of Islam, but USA law does not provide for deporting them or banning them like some would like, such as Trump supporters. It would be very difficult to amend the constitution to disallow freedom of religion, because that is one of the principle tenants in the founding of the nation.

    Islam is not going to throw out their Quran any more than Christians would throw out their Bible. The difference is, the New Testament part of the Bible forbids violence against anyone, for any reason, unlike the Quran which compels Muslims to kill all non-muslims. Because the USA was founded as a Christian nation, much of their religious ethics have been inherited, even by those Americans who do not technically belong to a Christian church or believe in their fundamental doctrine.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the golden rule, but that would seem to be in direct conflict with the USA philosophy, primarily that of the Republicans, to bomb them back to the stone age.
    I think your views and understanding of religions are pretty messed up.  Have you ever looked up or heard about the Crusades?  How about the wars being fought in Ireland?  Some Christians are as violent as anybody else.  Extremists and bad people from pretty much all religions twist the words and meaning of their respective holy texts to compel others to do their evil.  The vast majority of all religious people are decent people who worship peacefully.

    People are entitle to their various beliefs - no matter how ridiculous those beliefs sound to outsiders.  They are not entitled to force those beliefs on others nor use violence against anyone with a different belief.

    I was raised Christian (currently agnostic), but I know and have interacted with plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics as well as Christians - and they are all good, peaceful, law-abiding people.  Anecdotal - I know - but it still proves my point.  Its ridiculous to consider targeting all people that share a belief with any kind of sanctions, actions or restrictions - however, those people who encourage violence against others should be gathered up and shipped off the planet.  There's no room for those types in my world.

    From the tone of your last few posts, it sounds like you are a hater and your hate spreads much wider than it should.

    These religious texts have been re-written multiple times since they were first published and my belief (which I'm entitled to) is that they have been modified to suit the desires of those in charge of the religion.  I suspect that the content we see today is vastly different than what was originally written!

    I would love to see all "organized" religion banned, dispersed, outlawed etc while leaving people free to worship in their own way and in a place of their choosing.  "Organized religion" is the root of many of the worlds problems.

    I believe that the Pope is on the top rung of the worlds largest pyramid scheme!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.