Representatives from the seven countries (UK, USA, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, and Japan) known as the G7 which form the Council on Foreign Relations met to discuss what to do about extremist jihadi content on the internet. They want to work with tech giants to make sure anything that could recruit or train terrorists is taken down within two hours.
The United Kingdom actually proposed jailing anyone who even views extremist content online for up to 15 years! Of course, the governments will define “extremist content.” And as most things go, their definition will likely get looser over time.
For instance, when SWAT teams were introduced in America, the government claimed they would only be used in hostage situations. Today SWAT teams are used thousands of times a year, even for small-scale drug raids on non-violent suspects.
Practically anybody could be indicted for a crime if enough investigation went into their lives. There are so many laws, that we can’t go a day without breaking some statute.
Of course, most of us are not popular enough to draw the attention of U.S. prosecutors. But that is how they keep “the little guy” in line, by making examples out of the government’s enemies.
Reports indicate that Robert Mueller is on a fishing expedition to indict members of Trump’s team. If he can’t find any crimes, he will twist the law until something fits. Mueller and his team have done this in the past.
That’s the state of “justice” in America.
Here’s the tough thing about Big Brother technology. In the beginning, it really is just used against actual criminals.
In one instance, a woman’s Fitbit, a watch monitoring her activity, cast doubt on her husband’s story. He said she was murdered by an intruder. He told the police a story about when she came home, what she did in the time before the supposed intruder showed up, and that she ran down into the basement. Based on information from the device, they could see the story was a fabrication.
In another case, prosecutors successfully subpoenaed information from a man’s heart rate monitor which proved he was awake when he claimed to be asleep before a fire started. He is going to trial for the arson, and a judge ruled that the evidence will be allowed to be presented.
The problem is the precedent it sets. Much like the SWAT raids in the example above, this information may at first be used to solve arsons and murders.
But what happens when it is used to fish for crimes instead? Or to frame someone in the wrong place at the wrong time?