Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge [W:42]

[William Rea]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Hate to admit it, but this scourge of authoritarian conservatism sweeping the world with the likes of May, Duterte, Trump, Erdoğan, etc., is becoming a worldwide threat to freedom, liberty, and democratic principles.

Let's hope this is a quickly ending phase. Macron's ascendancy may be a positive sign that at least one 1st world nation still values freedom and liberty, and is willing to assume the cost. I hope!

Spain 1936, we are going to be authoritarian for your own good. We never learn.

 

[hanger4]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

The NSA and GCHQ already monitor the Internet, what exactly does May want ??

 

[William Rea]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Having been voluntarily under close watch for many decades to maintain a security clearance, I became used to a high level of being monitored by our government. Considering that our government already has its eyes on most of our communication methods, it comes down to resources - why would government agents choose you out many of millions of folks just like you to lean on?

If the government wanted to remove specifically you then rest assured that they could plant sufficient solid physical evidence of a controlled substance, kiddie porn or even terror ties to make you seem justifiably removable to even your own mother or simply make you appear to have been a victim of a "random" violent crime.

Like I sad before, privacy and using the internet are already incompatable even with government approved encryption methods.

Sure they could but, why make it even easier for them when they clearly have the power already, from what you have just described?

 

[William Rea]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

The NSA and GCHQ already monitor the Internet, what exactly does May want ??

Basically, to look superficially tough on terrorism, it is HER posturing with OUR freedom.

 

[Nilly]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Having been voluntarily under close watch for many decades to maintain a security clearance, I became used to a high level of being monitored by our government. Considering that our government already has its eyes on most of our communication methods, it comes down to resources - why would government agents choose you out many of millions of folks just like you to lean on?

If the government wanted to remove specifically you then rest assured that they could plant sufficient solid physical evidence of a controlled substance, kiddie porn or even terror ties to make you seem justifiably removable to even your own mother or simply make you appear to have been a victim of a "random" violent crime.

Like I sad before, privacy and using the internet are already incompatable even with government approved encryption methods.

The problem is, you might not think what you do online is valuable, but once you've given up privacy then it's not up to you to decide that. It's up to whomever has the data. Jew's had nothing to hide in Germany until someone decided that they did. Muslims have nothing to hide right now until someone potentially decides they do. You might think it will never happen to you but you don't know that, and things stored on file about you are awfully permanent. They don't have to look at that data right now, but they can get round to it, all just because you visited a particular website one time five years ago.

And if you don't really care about keeping it out of other people's hands, do you think the govt will?

I'm not really sure how you can consider yourself a libertarian giving what you're saying. The very mindset of 'nothing to hide' creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them, accomplished by never stepping out of line.

"A functioning police state needs no police."
~ William S. Burroughs

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Sure they could but, why make it even easier for them when they clearly have the power already, from what you have just described?

How does May's idea of the government openly editing the internet make anything easier? Like I said before, best to let you (and the "bad guys") think that the internet is safe rather than show you that the government is not only watching the internet but altering internet content as well.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

How does May's idea of the government openly editing the internet make anything easier? Like I said before, best to let you (and the "bad guys") think that the internet is safe rather than show you that the government is not only watching the internet but altering internet content as well.

I am at a complete loss here as to how it has come about that a declared 'socialist' is having to explain this to a declared 'libertarian'?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

The problem is, you might not think what you do online is valuable, but once you've given up privacy then it's not up to you to decide that. It's up to whomever has the data. Jew's had nothing to hide in Germany until someone decided that they did. Muslims have nothing to hide right now until someone potentially decides they do. You might think it will never happen to you but you don't know that, and things stored on file about you are awfully permanent. They don't have to look at that data right now, but they can get round to it, all just because you visited a particular website one time five years ago.

And if you don't really care about keeping it out of other people's hands, do you think the govt will?

I'm not really sure how you can consider yourself a libertarian giving what you're saying. The very mindset of 'nothing to hide' creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them, accomplished by never stepping out of line.

"A functioning police state needs no police."
~ William S. Burroughs

That (bolded above) ship has sailed long ago. Obviously, a government that talks about editing the internet content is already admitting that they are reading it.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge [W:42

*FULL LEAD:[h=1]Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack[/h]
Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack | The Independent

Yes, control the "internet" that's gonna solve this problem...

Unless they somehow figure out how to enforce a ban on using encryption, they cant do anything but reduce the freedom of law abiding citizens. Then again, they do like their domestic spying. I suppose if the general public goes along they can get to a real big brother scenario where neighbors are turning each other in.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

The NSA and GCHQ already monitor the Internet, what exactly does May want ??

They want to remove offending content and punish those who post it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

I am at a complete loss here as to how it has come about that a declared 'socialist' is having to explain this to a declared 'libertarian'?

Perhaps that is why neither socialists nor libertarians are running the government.

Explaining what should be or could be has no bearing on controlling what is. What we have now is the party for a bigger federal government (republicants) fiercely competing with the party for a huge federal government (demorats) while the others (third parties) can only sit back an watch that happen.

 

[hanger4]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

They want to remove offending content and punish those who post it.

Who decides what's offensive ??

What may be construed as offensive to some isn't to others and then there's that pesky 1st amendment.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

They want to remove offending content and punish those who post it.

Even on that basis there is a problem in that as soon as you invite someone in to do that they have to draw the line and find a way to police it, at which point we have to appoint people who become the arbiters and, those people will have their own agendas and will be influenced by the agendas of others. Every time you invite government in to arbitrate on matters of subjectivity, you are allowing them into your life and creating further problems. Here is my prediction if we allow this...

1. Internet companies will be asked to monitor.
2. The government will receive complaints and appeals that the companies are being too harsh/too lenient.
3. The government will be forced to set up an independent committee.
4. The committee will be forced to arbitrate on what constitutes an offence.
5. We will spend years arguing over what is offensive with lots of people trying to force that to mean only things that offend them.
6. In the meantime the committee will have embedded itself into our political life.
7. The committee will become an effective organ of government deciding what is and isn't moral.
8. Lawyers will get rich.
9. We will fully deserve everything the happens if the government decides it needs to use that organ against us.

We all like to believe that we can easily discern between good and bad.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Who decides what's offensive ??

What may be construed as offensive to some isn't to others and then there's that pesky 1st amendment.

Are you kidding me? There is no 1A in Europe. :roll:

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Even on that basis there is a problem in that as soon as you invite someone in to do that they have to draw the line and find a way to police it, at which point we have to appoint people who become the arbiters and, those people will have their own agendas and will be influenced by the agendas of others. Every time you invite government in to arbitrate on matters of subjectivity, you are allowing them into your life and creating further problems. Here is my prediction if we allow this...

1. Internet companies will be asked to monitor.
2. The government will receive complaints and appeals that the companies are being too harsh/too lenient.
3. The government will be forced to set up an independent committee.
4. The committee will be forced to arbitrate on what constitutes an offence.
5. We will spend years arguing over what is offensive with lots of people trying to force that to mean only things that offend them.
6. In the meantime the committee will have embedded itself into our political life.
7. The committee will become an effective organ of government deciding what is and isn't moral.
8. Lawyers will get rich.
9. We will fully deserve everything the happens if the government decides it needs to use that organ against us.

We all like to believe that we can easily discern between good and bad.

Many like to believe that they can control the government by talking or protesting.

 

[hanger4]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Are you kidding me? There is no 1A in Europe. :roll:

Wow, I did not know that. <sarcasm off> May wants to regulate the WWW, that would regulate this site also. The GCHQ would need to monitor Brits WWW traffic regardless of where it goes, therefore it'll affect all, hence my comment. As I've already said the GCHQ already does, what more does she want ?? This is no more than posturing.

 

[j-mac]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Many of the western world governments have been asking to be able to look at social media in vetting for years now..So far, the push back on that has kept them at bay....May not be the case as we move forward with ISIS using social media to spark these so called 'lone wolf' attacks through that very medium....

People need to understand this is a damned war, and one of the reasons that we haven't made more progress IMHO, up to now is because none of the countries being attacked are on a war footing.

 

[WCH]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

That means monitoring all of us.

Thought they already did?

 

[NoParty]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

I think almost everyone missed her point, she is not wanting to regulate the entire internet and everyone on it, they simply are going to start regulating muslim content. If you aren't a muslim looking at terrorist training videos, you won't have anything to worry about.

 

[fmw]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

They're coming for us...

They have been for a long time.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Many of the western world governments have been asking to be able to look at social media in vetting for years now..So far, the push back on that has kept them at bay....May not be the case as we move forward with ISIS using social media to spark these so called 'lone wolf' attacks through that very medium....

People need to understand this is a damned war, and one of the reasons that we haven't made more progress IMHO, up to now is because none of the countries being attacked are on a war footing.

The problem is that many (most?) of these "lone wolf" attacks are being done by their own citizens - how do you declare war on your own citizens? That is the nasty problem of fighting "a war" against an ideology - we (the never wrong government?) know what is in your head (heart?) and thus we can arrest (or kill?) you (as an enemy of the state?) is not an easy sell.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

The problem is that many (most?) of these "lone wolf" attacks are being done by their own citizens - how do you declare war on your own citizens? That is the nasty problem of fighting "a war" against an ideology - we (the never wrong government?) know what is in your head (heart?) and thus we can arrest (or kill?) you (as an enemy of the state?) is not an easy sell.

Agreed. Very tough sell. Where do individual freedoms and rights stop, and crack down begin?

I've read several neighbors had reported one of the London attackers to authorities, using the process the UK created.

I believe his quote was, "I did my bit, and many others did their bit, but the authorities didn't do their bit".

Asymmetric warfare is difficult to defend. We the people are not rational tips of the spear to deal with these terrorists, yet without we the people, how do they get identified?

 

[jonny5]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Who decides what's offensive ??

What may be construed as offensive to some isn't to others and then there's that pesky 1st amendment.

This is in UK, there is no such protection of speech. The govt (via the people electing them) will decide whats offensive.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Even on that basis there is a problem in that as soon as you invite someone in to do that they have to draw the line and find a way to police it, at which point we have to appoint people who become the arbiters and, those people will have their own agendas and will be influenced by the agendas of others. Every time you invite government in to arbitrate on matters of subjectivity, you are allowing them into your life and creating further problems. Here is my prediction if we allow this...

1. Internet companies will be asked to monitor.
2. The government will receive complaints and appeals that the companies are being too harsh/too lenient.
3. The government will be forced to set up an independent committee.
4. The committee will be forced to arbitrate on what constitutes an offence.
5. We will spend years arguing over what is offensive with lots of people trying to force that to mean only things that offend them.
6. In the meantime the committee will have embedded itself into our political life.
7. The committee will become an effective organ of government deciding what is and isn't moral.
8. Lawyers will get rich.
9. We will fully deserve everything the happens if the government decides it needs to use that organ against us.

We all like to believe that we can easily discern between good and bad.

Well, that appears to be what Brits want. Yall are just ahead of us on the slippery slope.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Agreed. Very tough sell. Where do individual freedoms and rights stop, and crack down begin?

I've read several neighbors had reported one of the London attackers to authorities, using the process the UK created.

I believe his quote was, "I did my bit, and many others did their bit, but the authorities didn't do their bit".

Asymmetric warfare is difficult to defend. We the people are not rational tips of the spear to deal with these terrorists, yet without we the people, how do they get identified?

The same applies to street gangs - we know who (many of) the gang members are but gang membership alone is not a crime.