Within The Com, so-called blood walls and cut-signs are promoted and sometimes required as entry criteria for certain groups. Blood walls are inscriptions or paintings made with blood that display the extorter’s online alias and group affiliation … Cut-signs involve individuals carving the extorter’s name into their own bodies, with images or videos of these acts later shared to enhance the extorter’s and their group’s status within The Com …
The Com produces manuals or guides covering topics such as grooming, murder, improvised explosives, or ideological viewpoints. These manuals are created by groups to instruct members on methods for committing violent attacks, grooming and (s)extorting vulnerable minors, or conducting doxing and swatting.
Doxing involves uncovering and exposing an individual’s personal data to extort or harass them. Personal information, such as a home address, may be used to carry out “swatting”. This is a tactic where the extorter contacts law enforcement with a hoax emergency call or threat, falsely claiming a violent crime is about to occur at the victim’s address. This prompts an emergency response, often endangering the individual and their family. The procedure is used to intimidate victims and may cause physical or psychological harm …
Good they took that down.
Some of the comments in this thread are extraordinarily weird. Calling this some thing like ‘censorship by the executive branch’ is out of touch imo.
In most European countries this kind of action is performed under orders and supervision from a judge and/or court of justice. This comes from an Europol press release centering on the action itself. I assume courts are involved.
under orders and supervision from a judge and/or court of justice
Are you sure? It’s not like that in Germany and the EU directive only asks for the possibility of judicial redress.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the prompt removal of online content constituting a public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, as referred to in Article 5, that is hosted in their territory.
Measures of removal and blocking must be set following transparent procedures and provide adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that those measures are limited to what is necessary and proportionate and that users are informed of the reason for those measures. Safeguards relating to removal or blocking shall also include the possibility of judicial redress.
From the original report:
Good they took that down.
Some of the comments in this thread are extraordinarily weird. Calling this some thing like ‘censorship by the executive branch’ is out of touch imo.
Can’t it be both? The group is dangerous and it is used to normalize judgements by the executive branch.
In most European countries this kind of action is performed under orders and supervision from a judge and/or court of justice. This comes from an Europol press release centering on the action itself. I assume courts are involved.
Are you sure? It’s not like that in Germany and the EU directive only asks for the possibility of judicial redress.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/541/oj/eng
The police orders the removal in Germany, not a judge:
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Fachthemen/Digitales/Schutz/TerrorOnlIn/start.html