Is our Prime Minister really this dense?

It is a bit like the phone system. Can you imagine every word you spoke on the phone being filtered through a system which flagged up the use of words that may be connected with you having an affair on the side? How would you react ? (apart from ditching either the suspicious husband or the luscious fancy man)

You would evolve a code, that's what.
You would say "Oh hi, Elizabeth, nice to hear from you (Wow Mike, you hunk! It's been a long time since Tuesday).
Yes, I'd love to meet for coffee this afternoon. ^(I am panting with desire!)
See you at the coffee shop at 2.30. (See you at that discreet hotel where we met last time)
If you are there first, order me a latte and a lemon drizzle cake. (Order a bottle of champagne)

Not to mention the millions of surveillance operators with redhot ears pinned to all the lines to interpret the possible meanings of all our exchanges.

Human beings are more subtle than electronic filters. They can tell when "sex" means "sex" and when it is a part of "Middlesex" or "sextuplets"

And of course there is the technology.

I heard on the radio this morning that Facebook do actually have people moderating it! They have got a GNHQ team!

We have already got cameras watching us all over the place.
The UK society accepted that remarkably easily.

I'm sorry to disagree thatbags but I think it is possible to "red flag" individual words and or combinations of words. I appreciate on something like FB it will be a huge task but so what? They could start with the worst possible. It is also possible to forbid words or statements from being "sent" in the first place, you only need to look at the fairly basic software of parental controls and/or public sector software that disallows certain words and you can see how an organisation such as FBcould at least make an effort. I can appreciate why they would not want to do it though. The cost for one. I don't agree that it would be like expecting Boots or Starbucks to be responsible for surveillance of their customers. This is something far far different.

Riverwalk, it would never be monitored totally, and totally efficiently.

Yes I think Gransnet should have such powers.
Now, no. I think it is so small that things would get reported by posters anayway.

We tend or try to think of the internet as not real life. I am as guilty of that as anyone.
But it is real life, albeit a bit different.

Do I want it to come soon? hmm. This FB thing yes.
Limited powers to limited companies with limited parameters.

As someone on the radio pointed out, there are approx 125 million postings on Facebook every day, in the UK alone!

How can that be monitored effectively?

Apparently one BILLION users worldwide .... a mind-boggling number of posts must be out there. And that's just FB.

Do you think Gransnet should have such "powers"? Gransnet is a social media thing.

Do you want it to come, soon? The kind of society whose ordinary citizens have no privacy because every social media man and his dog is allowed to use his company to 'monitor' one's posts? Sounds very Orwellian to me.

It will come.

I suggest you write to your MP and make that suggestion about commercial companies being given such "powers", soon.

This gets more sci-fi by the minute. Chuckle.

Companies can be given powers. Limited powers to limited companies with limited parameters.
If society agreed, then Governments wouldnt get the stick for it.

"Is our prime minister really this dense?"
YES

So, not defeatist. Just realistic.

Why do you think a commercial company is responsible for something which, whatever you believe, they do not have the power to do, soon?

They may have the programing expertise among their staff but they wouldn't be allowed to use it for what is essentially international security surveillance. There are privacy laws, you know, which they have to abide by. Remember the outcry there was when the US government was found to have breached international privacy law? How much worse would it be for a private company with no authority to spy?

I think it is just wishful thinking well mixed with a sort of despite (I'm using that as a noun to mean contempt) for companies that run social media.

To reiterate: although we all, every one of us individually and collectively (so including commercial companies), has a duty to report any behaviour that we feel might incite terrorist acts, it is not the job of companies like Facebook, or Boots the Chemist, or Starbucks, or the John Lewis group, or your local grocer, to do surveillance. That's what the FBI and MI5 are for.

I think that you are being a bit defeatist thatbags. I am pretty sure that FB can do a lot more than it is doing.
Personally I do think they have some responsibility to do more.

It is a bit like, if you are in a shop, the shop has some responsibilites while you are in there. They dont have responsibilities when you are back out in the carpark.

There is some sort of body doing that, in this country at least. I think I read there are about 457 people doing it.
A bit of a drop in the ocean.
But you do hear of plots foiled. And that seem to be because they have highlighted terror suspects and are listening in.
That method does not currently catch all of them obviously.

FB is not capable of flagging things up from all the millions of FB posts every day

I should imagine it could get much better at it, if it wanted to.
I would also imagine that national Governments can force it too. Depends who has the real power in the world doesnt it.

There are 1 million posts per minute on Facebook across the world. Even if indications of possible terrorist threats were flagged, they would then have to be reviewed by a person – or, rather, lots of people – to assess their validity and to review the potential intelligence. Simply recording their presence or deleting them serves no purpose.

Revision, for jings' sake (because she likes him): I'd have been cross with any prime minister who said this. It's not about DC except insofar as he's the current one.

Actually, I'd be cross with any politician at all who said it.

Cos it's GARBAGE.

The 9/11 terrorists used innocuous fake locations for the Twin Towers, White House and Pentagon, according to the FBI as described in the official report. Any terrorist with half a brain is hardly going to broadcast the words that the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, Special Branch, MI5, MI6 and every intelligence uncle Tom Cobbley automatically flags, such as President, Prime Minister, Buckingham Palace, Scotland Yard, Quantico, the Elysée Palace, Obama, Prince Charles and so on. By contrast, they would probably dismiss as loopy ostensible terrorist messages that did broadcast such words.

I think DC is a decent person. Surrounded by numpties, perhaps.

He's right about this.

Goodnight, folks.

Blaming FB for something over which it has no control is what made me cross with David Cameron. I don't believe he's that stupid, in spite of the thread title. It's deliberate politicking to take people in. And, boy, is it successful.