3 ms·

>Referring to Whatsapp's system of end-to-end encryption, she said: "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide. Thats it g

by s3arch 10y ago

>Referring to Whatsapp's system of end-to-end encryption, she said: "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide. Thats it guys. Mommy says no more maths.

atmosx 10y ago
> "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide." Agreed. I'm terrorized when I hear gov representatives talking like that. Who's the terrorist, I wonder.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tunap 10y ago
  I seem to remember in pre-inet news, rogue actors with mental disorders seldom made national headlines. Now an individual with no affiliation with organized hate-based groups and some twisted logic can dream of international recognition for their actions if they manage to fulfill loose criteria under the "terrorists" FUD umbrella. Dead or alive, they want to be significant in some way different from their previously banal existence, consequences be damned.
  - collyw 10y ago
    I was discussing this with friends. The fact that people are acting in the name of Islam and there is a common ideology behind the attacks is why they are considered "terrorism" rather than lone wold attacks. Admittedly this one seems to be somewhere in between. Mass shootings in the US by contrast, do seem to be done by rouge actors in general, and there doesn't seem to be a common element to such attacks. As with everything such definitions aren't black and white and more of a sliding scale, so can be interpreted differently depending on your viewpoint.
    - alphabettsy 10y ago
      No common element in US attacks? I think in the majority of cases that's just not true. People weren't killed, but the PizzaGate shooter was motivated by what can only be described as a large cult of a particular persuasion, Planned Parenthood shooter certainly had his political motives, Charleston shooter had motives that have existed in the US almost continuously, Oregon standoff were all anti-government types, I could go on and on. I would say the main difference is we are not actively at war with people that share their faith or look like them overseas. As far as I'm aware the Boston bombers and Orlando shooter were only inspired by, but received no support from groups such as ISIS. In that way they were just as self-radicalized as Dylan Roof the Charleston shooter. Obviously it's all more complicated than I could quickly write, but to me there's a big difference between the self-radicalized generally disconnected persons in the US or U.K. versus those on the ground overseas.

by s3arch 10y ago

>Referring to Whatsapp's system of end-to-end encryption, she said: "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide. Thats it guys. Mommy says no more maths.

atmosx 10y ago

> "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide." Agreed. I'm terrorized when I hear gov representatives talking like that. Who's the terrorist, I wonder.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tunap 10y ago
I seem to remember in pre-inet news, rogue actors with mental disorders seldom made national headlines. Now an individual with no affiliation with organized hate-based groups and some twisted logic can dream of international recognition for their actions if they manage to fulfill loose criteria under the "terrorists" FUD umbrella. Dead or alive, they want to be significant in some way different from their previously banal existence, consequences be damned.
- collyw 10y ago
  I was discussing this with friends. The fact that people are acting in the name of Islam and there is a common ideology behind the attacks is why they are considered "terrorism" rather than lone wold attacks. Admittedly this one seems to be somewhere in between. Mass shootings in the US by contrast, do seem to be done by rouge actors in general, and there doesn't seem to be a common element to such attacks. As with everything such definitions aren't black and white and more of a sliding scale, so can be interpreted differently depending on your viewpoint.
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    No common element in US attacks? I think in the majority of cases that's just not true. People weren't killed, but the PizzaGate shooter was motivated by what can only be described as a large cult of a particular persuasion, Planned Parenthood shooter certainly had his political motives, Charleston shooter had motives that have existed in the US almost continuously, Oregon standoff were all anti-government types, I could go on and on. I would say the main difference is we are not actively at war with people that share their faith or look like them overseas. As far as I'm aware the Boston bombers and Orlando shooter were only inspired by, but received no support from groups such as ISIS. In that way they were just as self-radicalized as Dylan Roof the Charleston shooter. Obviously it's all more complicated than I could quickly write, but to me there's a big difference between the self-radicalized generally disconnected persons in the US or U.K. versus those on the ground overseas.