Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

Terrorists No Longer Welcome On OneDrive, Outlook, Xbox Live (betanews.com) 81

Microsoft has updated its anti-terrorism policies. In a blog post, the Redmond, Washington-based company said that it would remove "terrorist content" from a fleet of its services including OneDrive, Outlook and Xbox Live, reports BetaNews. For its search engine Bing, however, Microsoft says that it would only remove links when it is required by local law, citing free expression for all. The company adds that it would fund research for a tool that could help it better scan such content and flag image, audio and video. From company's blog post: There is no universally accepted definition of terrorist content. For purposes of our services, we will consider terrorist content to be material posted by or in support of organizations included on the Consolidated United Nations Security Council Sanctions List that depicts graphic violence, encourages violent action, endorses a terrorist organization or its acts, or encourages people to join such groups. The UN Sanctions List includes a list of groups that the UN Security Council considers to be terrorist organizations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terrorists No Longer Welcome On OneDrive, Outlook, Xbox Live

Comments Filter:
  • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Saturday May 21, 2016 @10:47AM (#52155189) Homepage Journal
    Does that mean I can get a refund?
  • That list... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by valinor89 ( 1564455 ) on Saturday May 21, 2016 @10:49AM (#52155199)
    It seems to include some organizations that are not terrorist per se. OK, maybe we consider every ministry of Iran a terrorist organization but it is abit selfserving. Same with North Korean Atomic autorithy. Sure, they are "bad" but not terrorist organizations. Central Bank of Iraq is in there because it somehow financed terrorism... I bet that some American banks are involved with CIA operations too and they are not listed as terrorism organizations. I guess "Terrorism" is on the eyes of the beholder...
    • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Saturday May 21, 2016 @10:51AM (#52155217) Homepage Journal
      The CIA isn't a terrorist organization. They are the ones protecting your rights to say stupid things on the Internet and allowing Allu Akbar from chopping your head off for belonging to the wrong religious group.
      • > The CIA isn't a terrorist organization.

        I've seen little evidence that they act brutally and without warning against civilians uninvolved in a conflict, one of the more useful definitions of terrorism. They're certainly a criminal organization often in violation of US law and international treaty.

      • The CIA isn't a terrorist organization. They are the ones protecting your rights to say stupid things on the Internet and allowing Allu Akbar from chopping your head off for belonging to the wrong religious group.

        Yes they are. Look at who they have funded over the years Osam bin ladin and his Mujahideen aka the Taliban.
        Then there is the whole international drug trade were they where distributing heroin opium and more
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Considering they funded AlQaida they should be on that list...
      • by nbauman ( 624611 )

        The CIA isn't a terrorist organization. They are the ones protecting your rights to say stupid things on the Internet and allowing Allu Akbar from chopping your head off for belonging to the wrong religious group.

        http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/... [foreignpolicy.com]
        Mapped: The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown. Yes, we now have confirmation that the CIA was behind Iran's 1953 coup. But the agency hardly stopped there.
        By J. Dana Stuster
        August 20, 2013

        Iran, 1953

        Guatemala, 1954

        Congo, 1960

        Dominican Republic, 1961

        South Vietnam, 1963

        Brazil, 1964

        Chile, 1973

        http://www.alternet.org/world/... [alternet.org]

        “I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too

        • The "right to vote yourself communist" translates to "the all-too common practice of a large chunk of the population following a demagogue into dictatorship."

          The dictators they replace are no better (but probably no worse, when you measure actual health and wealth of the average person, and maybe better.) There is little freedom in either case.

          • by nbauman ( 624611 )

            The "right to vote yourself communist" translates to "the all-too common practice of a large chunk of the population following a demagogue into dictatorship."

            The alternative that Kissinger advocated was the practice of having a foreign power (the US) overthrow a democratically-elected government that he believed was a communist dictatorship.

            The dictators they replace are no better (but probably no worse, when you measure actual health and wealth of the average person, and maybe better.) There is little freedom in either case.

            I believe that there is more freedom when a population makes a decision based on a vote, than when the decision is imposed on them by a foreign power.

            Some people could reasonably choose communism over the alternatives. According to first-hand stories from the Wall Street Journal, many Afghans preferred the communist regime to

      • by dave420 ( 699308 )

        They have used force and/or the threat of force to politically coerce people. That is the definition of terrorism. It has nothing to do with whether their aims are righteous or not, or whether they are doing it for you or not.

    • I guess "Terrorism" is on the eyes of the beholder...

      You got it. If the British had won, George Washington and the founding fathers would have gone down in history as "terrorists".

      • You got it. If the British had won, George Washington and the founding fathers would have gone down in history as "terrorists".

        But they didn't win, and thus the truth remains well known. The British were the ones acting in tyrannical ways, not the colonists. Resisting the tyrannical urges of a government that puts their troops in your home, deprives you of self defense, refuses you a voice in parliament, arrests you for manufacturing finished goods and so on - resisting such is not "terrorism" even if the tyrant in question wants to call it that. Terrorism isn't in the eyes of the beholder, it's in the act of the beheader - the pe

        • We just care what they DO...

          With all the money and weapons you send them [bbc.com], you have a funny way of showing it. You can stop the charade any time you want, you know..

          • So if I break into your house and steal a kitchen knife which I then use to kill somebody, should you feel guilty because someone else says you provided me with the weapon? No? I see.
            • There was no "break in". The "house" was the pick up point. Plausible deniability works pretty good on you, doesn't it?

            • So if I break into your house and steal a kitchen knife which I then use to kill somebody, should you feel guilty because someone else says you provided me with the weapon? No? I see.

              Holy fuck, Analogy Failure Alert, Level 1 Million.

              They didn't break into our military stockpiles and steal weapons and money, we sent it to them.

              Are you really unable to discern the difference between these two things?

              • No, we did not send arms to the Taliban to use in killing western aid workers or to shoot school teachers in the head.

                No, we did not send arms to ISIS.

                Are you unable to grasp the concept of "getting into the wrong hands?" The analogy isn't meant to be exact, it's meant for normal, intelligent human beings to grapple with the concept of culpability for someone else's actions. None of those arms pick themselves up and kill the wrong people. People do that. Let me guess, you're in the sue-Remington-becau
                • No, you're just refusing to acknowledge that this is how weapons are transferred in the middle east to people we are not to supposed to deal with for strictly PR reasons, but who serve our purpose. It's just another variation of Iran/Contra...

                  Here again, you are merely appealing to authority, reciting its propaganda.

                • No, we did not send arms to the Taliban to use in killing western aid workers or to shoot school teachers in the head.
                  No, we did not send arms to ISIS.

                  Lol, you're so adorably naive, I'm tempted to print your post and frame it.

                  The brilliant tacticians who approved the sale of arms and ammunition to "the enemy of our enemy" knew from long experience that this stuff would inevitably end up in the hands of people who would turn around and use it against us. It's happened so many times that you can place large bets on it and win every single time.

                  It's like arming the Hell's Angels and sending them against the Crips....and whaddya know, the Hell's Angel

                • No, we did not send arms to the Taliban to use in killing western aid workers or to shoot school teachers in the head.

                  False [rollingstone.com]. That's precisely what we did, and precisely why we did it, too.

        • You got it. If the British had won, George Washington and the founding fathers would have gone down in history as "terrorists".

          But they didn't win, and thus the truth remains well known. The British were the ones acting in tyrannical ways, not the colonists. Resisting the tyrannical urges of a government that puts their troops in your home, deprives you of self defense, refuses you a voice in parliament, arrests you for manufacturing finished goods and so on - resisting such is not "terrorism" even if the tyrant in question wants to call it that. Terrorism isn't in the eyes of the beholder, it's in the act of the beheader - the person who kills school teachers for teaching girls to read. Who send drugged young women into vegetable markets with bombs strapped to them. Who slaughter villages full of people for being insufficiently the right way about some particular twist or turn of believing in magic and some specific flavor of fantasy mythology. Nobody cares if Taliban wants to call school teachers terrorists, because we know, and they know that's bullshit. We just care what they DO, and what they do is try to scare people into conducting their lives the way their religious say they should. Beard police! No dancing! Fly kites and die!

          But see? You're absolutly dead set. You realize the Americans started the war because the the British lowered taxes, which damaged the smuggler's trade? They didn't object to the treaty keeping them west of the mountains because they ran out of space, but because the land was a few cents cheaper? That they were offered a representative, but refused because England was unwilling to move the British Parliment overseas? That George Washington looked down on his own militias as an unorganized bunch of idiots u

        • But they didn't win, and thus the truth remains well known. The British were the ones acting in tyrannical ways, not the colonists.

          Yes, yes, we all know that. But that's not the point. The point is that the winner write the history books, and my point still stands. Had the British prevailed, George Washington and the founding fathers would have gone down in history as "terrorists". Some people would have known the truth, but it would have been a historical byline at best.

          Nobody cares if Taliban wants to call school teachers terrorists, because we know, and they know that's bullshit. We just care what they DO, and what they do is try to scare people into conducting their lives the way their religious say they should. Beard police! No dancing! Fly kites and die!

          But what if I dance beardless while flying a kite?

          • by dave420 ( 699308 )

            They would be recorded as rebels. Rebelling and terrorism are not the same thing. If the rebels had used force and/or the threat of it to coerce the British people into calling for change, then they'd be guilty of terrorism. Terrorism isn't just "angry stuff we don't like", it's something very specific.

            • They would be recorded as rebels.

              Well...maybe and maybe not.

              The winners write the history books, and they're often inclined to cast their opponents/enemies in the worst possible light whilst making themselves out to be selfless heroes fighting the good fight.

        • by nbauman ( 624611 )

          Terrorism isn't in the eyes of the beholder, it's in the act of the beheader .... Who slaughter villages full of people for being insufficiently the right way about some particular twist or turn of believing in magic and some specific flavor of fantasy mythology.

          My Lai Massacre http://www.history.com/topics/... [history.com]

        • by dave420 ( 699308 )

          Incorrect. Terrorism is a combination of an act and a motive. You can blow a building up and it isn't terrorism, if you just wanted to blow up the building and kill those inside. If, however, your motive was to use the threat of further violence to somehow coerce the surviving population, then it's terrorism.

          I wish you'd understand this stuff. You get so carried away with what you are certain of, only to show everyone you don't really understand it correctly.

    • by Kirth ( 183 )

      What I don't understand: There's a load of organizations and companies that have their addresses listed, with things like "Baghdad, Iraq". I mean, the "Baghdad Stock Exchange" (yes, that's the ISX) is on there, and they've even got an American advisor. So how does this end up on that list? Because if it really does something illegal, it can be persecuted immediately.

  • Wouldn't Microsoft itself be in trouble for "terrorist content" under its own definition?

    >> depicts graphic violence, encourages violent action

    Dead Space, Mortal Kombat, Medal of Honor...

    >> endorses a terrorist organization or its acts

    Star Wars Battlefront?
    • > Star Wars Battlefront

      And the war crime of forcing what are obviously untrained civilians, AKA "Storm Troopers", to run up as human waves to the slaughter, no ability to shoot, and cool looking armor that might as well be tissue paper.

  • Does that mean no mention of Valve's Counter-Strike game?

    Or are you just banned from storing recordings of the game where the terrorists win?

    • Does a recording of a game that turns out that way actually promote the agenda of groups like ISIS? If so, how?
      • Who the hell cares? Either way, Microsoft is perfectly welcome to its editorial judgement in deciding what to distribute, for or against... Unless you're thinking of buying/playing the game, its content is none of your business.

        ISIS... please... They and Al Qaeda are your proxies, your Middle East avatars in your war against Russia. You should be happy it's their blood marking your "red line" in the sand and not your kid's...

  • So this means all the content you store on MS's services is there completely unencrypted, fully readable to MS themselves and in extension everyone asking nicely enough?

    Anyone using their services should really reconsider and look for cloud services that encrypt by default, or encrypt their stuff before uploading it to the cloud storage.

  • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday May 21, 2016 @11:00AM (#52155257)

    This just gives Microsoft license to do whatever the fuck they want at any time with no recourse. Pretty much like before except now it can be done under the auspices of "fighting terrorism".

    Plus it gives them a wide-open excuse to paw through your files and content because, you know, they're just lookin' for terroristic content, who could possibly have a problem with that?

  • I'm not sure why but I have a problem with using services from any company that says its going to delete my files if it it thinks they might be dangerous. I think it goes all the way back to the first time a virus scanner deleted buttons.exe for my safety.

  • "Terrorism" is defined by its target, not its content. Right now Al Qaeda is our "friend" in the kabuki against ISIS.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    For purposes of our services, we will consider terrorist content to be material posted by or in support of organizations included on the Consolidated United Nations Security Council Sanctions List that depicts graphic violence, encourages violent action, endorses a terrorist organization or its acts, or encourages people to join such groups.

    Ah, you mean like the Google Doodle of Yuri Kochiyama [i.sli.mg] who praised Osama Bin Laden in 2003 and encouraged people to join "revolutionary movements"?

    Protip: Socialist "revolutionary moments" are started by terrorists and usually involve bombing and calls to violence.

    • Yeah since Google is now honoring Black Separatists and praising people who fly airplanes into buildings full of innocent people I wonder when they are going to honor a "White Separatist".

      Seriously I nuked chrome from my desktop and moved everything to Firefox on all my devices over that... small gesture sure but I even found out I like firefox better now.

  • The big deal here is "OneDrive". The other stuff is expected. If you search up OneDrive, you find this description from Microsoft themselves:
    "Get to your files and photos from anywhere, on any device. Share and work together with anyone in your work and life."

    It is clear that as cloud becomes ubiquitous, it will also become very restrictive. While decentralized computing is pretty resistant to censorship, centralized computing is not. While there are workarounds (such as only transferring and storing en

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

    That means that "The Division" is going to be pulled? as that is jam packed full of terrorist content.

    Hell the dark zone is where assholes go to act like terrorists in game.

  • So, they're going to have to pay business rates for hosting "terrorist" content now.
    After all, money and power are all that matters to microsoft.

  • They'll leave most of the actual terrorists alone, but manage to use this to silence right-wing opinion.

  • John Oliver might say that nothing screams a two-digit IQ quite like beginning a headline with "terrorists no longer welcome"—unless you've actually located a Motel 6 manager who just painted over his "terrorists welcome" pool-side wall mural, and not just to test "wife beaters welcome" to see if it generates more patronage.

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.

Working...