Theresa May Calls for More Regulation of Internet After London Attack

[Fenixgoon]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/04/technology/social-media-terrorism-extremism-london/index.html

We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed," May said. "Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide."


"We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning," she continued. "We need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online."

May's call for new internet regulations was part of a larger strategy to combat terror, including what she described as "far too much tolerance of extremism in our country."

sadly, free speech is a bitch. trying to regulate internet speech is simply a game of whackamole as everyone here well knows, and it plays right into the hands of becoming the very thing that you're supposedly trying to avoid by being democratic - authoritarianism.

after all, what speech is extremist? anything the government doesn't like?

 

[senseamp]

Really she has no better ideas to protect her country? She should resign then.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes, That is the answer. Shut down the internet. Brilliant!

/s

 

[mikeymikec]

The UK government likes solutions that either involve paying its friends lots of money, or solutions it doesn't have to pay for like this one. The international agreements would involve telling companies like Google and Facebook that they have to regulate the content themselves according to the new laws.

This government also doesn't like doing anything that involves benefiting poorer people even though that stands a far greater chance of reducing homegrown terrorism, such as improving education, social care and funding for the police, and intelligence agencies (though not for lazy solutions such as "we need to spy on everyone unceasingly 24/7").

 

[Monk5127]

So the Investigatory Powers Act was not enough?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/contents/enacted

 

[dank69]

Yes, That is the answer. Shut down the internet. Brilliant!

/s

Well these are your options. Either get more authoritarian or stop being pansy bitches that act like "something has to be done" every time we have a terrorist incident. There is no middle ground. I opt for the latter. For some reason, conservative libertopians like to scream that something should be done without considering what that really means.

 

[FIVR]

CNN's British Authoritarian Shill, Paul Cruikshank, was on TV within 20 min of the first attack blathering about the need to ban end-to-end encryption because of people "going dark". They had him out a few hours after the second attack too. Everybody loves a good terrorist attack, but I don't feel like this story will have the legs that Orlando or even Paris. There just aren't enough bodies to get the CNN reporters hard. It's been 12 hours and they're already fumbling about, pushing rope.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is a tough one because I know that with encryption it is impossible to stop all such communication. But encryption is vital to a free society, is it not? Hell, it's vital to security. But maybe we don't have to stop all of their communications, just sweeping the "public" spaces and banning groups like ISIS could be enough.

 

[mikeymikec]

I wonder just how much egg the government would have to clean off its face if it came to light that the organisation for most of these attacks was achieved by using some really old technique like coded classified ads, and only using burner phones in emergencies.

 

[Rebel_L]

This is a tough one because I know that with encryption it is impossible to stop all such communication. But encryption is vital to a free society, is it not? Hell, it's vital to security. But maybe we don't have to stop all of their communications, just sweeping the "public" spaces and banning groups like ISIS could be enough.

Successfully banning encryption on the internet seems highly unrealistic. Without it e-commerce would not exist and that alone would stop something of the sort from being implemented.

In a free society your best bet to combat terrorism is to make the lives of the disenfranchised better so they stop wanting to be terrorists. By nature of not arresting people for things they haven't done you allow for the act to be committed, it is the price of freedom.

I remember the movies from when I was younger and the general message was often that freedom is worth any price (take Braveheart for instance)..... it seems that is not longer something that people have such strong feelings about.

 

[shortylickens]

Right, cuz lord knows nobody ever planned a terror attack before the internet.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Ugh, and I'm sure the US will follow suit. If she pushes this the people of the U.K. need to march and drag her ass out of office.

 

[sandorski]

Banning/Removing Hate Speech seems counter productive, from a Security perspective. Haters gonna hate, one way or another. So, let them Hate somewhat openly where you can watch and track them. By "somewhat" I mean, let them have their websites/forums/other venues without interference to spout their shit. Let YT, FB, Twitter, and other more mainstream services censor such things, but don't totally force these people underground.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Agreed sort of, but not so we can monitor them. I'm sick of government monitoring as it is. Free speech should be unbridled, and the internet should be open and free. This is 2017, the internet is like air and water now, we don't need the government to fuck it up.

 

[sandorski]

Agreed sort of, but not so we can monitor them. I'm sick of government monitoring as it is. Free speech should be unbridled, and the internet should be open and free. This is 2017, the internet is like air and water now, we don't need the government to fuck it up.

Monitoring has become necessary.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Monitoring has become necessary.

Perhaps, but I'd rather err on the side of the government not watching everything I do.

 

[mikeymikec]

Perhaps, but I'd rather err on the side of the government not watching everything I do.

It isn't often that I agree with this guy, but I do here, especially since the UK government's most recent incursion on civil liberties included MPs voting for an exception so they couldn't be monitored using the most recent mass surveillance law.

Though I wonder whether the term "monitoring" is being diluted here. I'm referring to mass surveillance, ie. the pooling of public and private communications. I have no problem with intelligence agencies monitoring publicly accessible forums or posing as prospective bad guys in order to get an ear into criminal communications. I have no problem with citizens' private communications being monitored either, but the whole setup needs independent oversight and permissions for a person's private communications being monitored must be subject to someone public with whom the buck stops when overreach has occurred. There's simply no good reason why everyones' private communications must be monitored, it's like saying "a rape occurred in this town, we shall require a DNA sample from literally everyone before we bother to do any investigative work".

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps, but I'd rather err on the side of the government not watching everything I do.

They wouldn't be, they have ways to only focus on those that need watching. Unless, of course, you need watching. It's not the ideal situation, I'd prefer not being potentially watched either, but as long as extremist fucks exist it is not prudent to turn a blind eye.

 

[yllus]

Stuff like this proves that baby boomers are no longer fit for public office. This idiot actually thinks this is feasible, much less politically possible.

 

[UglyCasanova]

They wouldn't be, they have ways to only focus on those that need watching. Unless, of course, you need watching. It's not the ideal situation, I'd prefer not being potentially watched either, but as long as extremist fucks exist it is not prudent to turn a blind eye.

She nor any other politician is advocating for highly focused internet surveillance, they all want dragnet. Monitor everyone and everything.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Bloody 'ell this has got to be a false flag. Too convenient.

 

[Balt]

Ugh, and I'm sure the US will follow suit.

People from both parties have been trying for a long time. I think the only thing preventing it is big companies saying "no" and a fear that the courts won't allow the government to compel them to comply.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea since:

1) I don't trust the government to adequately protect the 'skeleton keys' to encryption software. Or use them responsibly.
and
2) I think it's quite possible for terrorists to just get around it by using other means of un-monitored communication or encryption they could develop on their own. At that point you're just spying on everyone else.

 

[sandorski]

She nor any other politician is advocating for highly focused internet surveillance, they all want dragnet. Monitor everyone and everything.

Technically, everyone would be monitored, but the vast majorities communications would never be seen by a Human eye. Automated electronic systems would just scan everyone then flag certain people for closer monitoring.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Technically, everyone would be monitored, but the vast majorities communications would never be seen by a Human eye. Automated electronic systems would just scan everyone then flag certain people for closer monitoring.

Just like our lovely NSA. George Orwell would be a fan.

 

[sandorski]

Just like our lovely NSA. George Orwell would be a fan.

Would you like to prevent assholes from wrecking shit or would you not?