UK For A Government Controlled Internet - Theresa May

[Lurick]

It baffles me that these people in power seem to be taking 1984 as a manuscript on how to govern and there are hundreds of millions of people who don't seem to mind that kind of control.

[EminentSun]

How would you prevent this law from affecting non uk peoples. Like will google have to delete all my stuff because some forign country said so?

[haloharry97]

if uk becomes like chana am moving the fuck out and going to japan, where they have more porn then your balls can handle.

[mark_cameron]

19 hours ago, AUniqueName said:

Theresa May On Plans for A Government Controlled And Regulated Internet

 

Theresa has plans to restructure the Internet as we know it, to be Government controlled and governed. With her main focus typically being on 'harmful content', such as porn, hate speech, extremism and such, she states that we (the Conservatives) disagree with the attitude some people have that the Internet and technology shouldn't be regulated by the government: 

 

The issue comes down to just what they deem as being harmful content. The intention is to: 

- The Conservative Manifesto

 

 

A suggestion here to block search engines from linking people to content which they deem as being harmful; define harmful. Is pornography harmful? What do you class as hate speech? Hate speech against what particularly? 

And of course, the terrorism card has been played, to encourage internet companies (ISPs) to comply with schemes to combat extremism and ensure no :

 

And to get technology companies to comply with their wishes and implement backdoors in their encryption which:

 

- The Independent

 

This isn't the first time the UK has suggested trying to block access to pornography, or other harmful content. However, in this attempt, it would give the government much wider control over content on the Internet, and isn't as simple as just asking Google not to link to porn sites or for porn sites to implement stricter age limits. It's a proposal for the Government to have rain over what can and can't be shared - what they deem as being harmful and what they think we should and shouldn't be allowed to see.

UK law is quite clear on what is LAWFUL and what is UNLAWFUL.

 

As far as I can tell it'll simply be a case of trying to restrict access to the MOST HARMFUL stuff that is clearly legally not acceptable.

 

The likes of ISIS/IS supporting nutcases publishing beheadings (murder) and the like.

 

I doubt you would actually see much difference to the actual internet. Access to pornography (if its legal pornography) and for over 18's it is in UK law - the government legally cannot restrict access to it. To do so they'd have to make it illegal which would undoubtedly be overturned, on human rights grounds in the Supreme Court anyway. What consenting adults do in their own home is no business of government (if it is LAWFUL).

 

Child pornography which is obviously a different matter - is clearly illegal - would be stamped on as it puts greater responsibilities on these multi billion behemoths like Google and Microsoft and similar to prevent it being either accessible or disseminated.

 

 

This is my take.

 

I think people sometimes see things and alarm bells ring. Whereas in the UK we have an independent judiciary to government that works. Despite what the Daily Express etc would like to tell people (i.e. post Brexit attacks on Judges)

[mark_cameron]

20 hours ago, AUniqueName said:

Theresa May On Plans for A Government Controlled And Regulated Internet

 

Theresa has plans to restructure the Internet as we know it, to be Government controlled and governed. With her main focus typically being on 'harmful content', such as porn, hate speech, extremism and such, she states that we (the Conservatives) disagree with the attitude some people have that the Internet and technology shouldn't be regulated by the government: 

 

The issue comes down to just what they deem as being harmful content. The intention is to: 

- The Conservative Manifesto

 

 

A suggestion here to block search engines from linking people to content which they deem as being harmful; define harmful. Is pornography harmful? What do you class as hate speech? Hate speech against what particularly? 

And of course, the terrorism card has been played, to encourage internet companies (ISPs) to comply with schemes to combat extremism and ensure no :

 

And to get technology companies to comply with their wishes and implement backdoors in their encryption which:

 

- The Independent

 

This isn't the first time the UK has suggested trying to block access to pornography, or other harmful content. However, in this attempt, it would give the government much wider control over content on the Internet, and isn't as simple as just asking Google not to link to porn sites or for porn sites to implement stricter age limits. It's a proposal for the Government to have rain over what can and can't be shared - what they deem as being harmful and what they think we should and shouldn't be allowed to see.

I've just read the manifesto relevant sections.

 

Pages 80-81 'The Safest Place to be Online'

 

Pages 82-83 'A Free Media'

 

 

Nothing alarming to me reading it. It is clearly directed at protecting children from 'horrific' content.

 

Balanced with what is already policy trying to balance a free media responsibilities with privacy abuses post-Leveson Inquiry.

 

It actually uses the words 'harmful' 'illegal' and 'hate-speech' as its main focuses. Mainly for children.

Again, nothing really alarming to me there.

 

Think the newspaper The Independent is trying to make a news story out of something already well known.

 

[mark_cameron]

8 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Because it's the highest form of degeneracy?

 

OF course, without so much as a constitution, you all are in for quite the whirl.

We have an unwritten constitution.

 

Bound up in British law already - that means that government cannot simply ban things on a whim. Without independent judicial oversight and the electorate have their say too. Which means it has to actually go through parliament and be passed by all the MPs in parliament.

 

Given that MPs are closer than your elected officials to their constituents in the UK, than in the US.

 

Not worried here.

[mark_cameron]

Just now, rrubberr said:

 

Its not explicitly written.

 

Its bound up in all of the laws of the United Kindgom. Which are written.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

I've just read the manifesto relevant sections.

 

Pages 80-81 'The Safest Place to be Online'

 

Pages 82-83 'A Free Media'

 

 

Nothing alarming to me reading it. It is clearly directed at protecting children from 'horrific' content.

 

Balanced with what is already policy trying to balance a free media responsibilities with privacy abuses post-Leveson Inquiry.

 

It actually uses the words 'harmful' 'illegal' and 'hate-speech' as its main focuses. Mainly for children.

Again, nothing really alarming to me there.

 

Think the newspaper The Independent is trying to make a news story out of something already well known.

 

I disagree, I find a couple of things alarming and a lot of it typical political front for their real intentions. For example:

1) Doesn't elaborate on 'users'. I'm over 18, so why should they make industry not direct me to porn sites if I want to watch porn? And by direct me, I presume search results, or any links - direct or indirect  - to such sites. There's also the 'other sources of harm'. If it said content which violates UK law, I could deal with, but I'm not leaving it to some politician to decide what is and isn't harmful to me and whether I should be able to see it or not. 

 

2) Is quite clearly a front for them wanting access to online communications. They're not saying they want to stop terrorists from safely communicating after reasonable suspicion, they're saying they don't want them to have the ability to do so in the first place - encryption backdoors and access to once secure communications  

[mark_cameron]

Just now, AUniqueName said:

I disagree, I find a couple of things alarming and a lot of it typical political front for their real intentions. For example:

1) Doesn't elaborate on 'users'. I'm over 18, so why should they make industry not direct me to porn sites if I want to watch porn? And by direct me, I presume search results, or anything links direct or indirect to such sites. There's also the 'other sources of harm'. If it content which violates UK law, I could deal with, but I'm not leaving it to some politician to decide what is and isn't harmful to me and whether I should be able to see it or not. 

 

2) Is quite clearly a front for them wanting access to online communications. They're not saying they want to stop terrorists from safely communicating after reasonable suspicion, they're saying they don't want them to have the ability to do so in the first place - encryption backdoors and access to once secure communications  

They will need to define that in any legislation they propose to pass. Harm is a very woolly term.

Remember that any legislation proposed would need to go through the house of commons and the house of lords and may be challenged through the courts.

 

I would take it as being the most harmful content which is obviously terrorism or criminal related.

 

 

The UK government already has enormous powers to access online communication (if there is a suspicion of criminality and particular terrorism). Terrorist communications is one which they have already said they want to target which is end-to-end encryption (see incident on Westminster Bridge, recently). As it makes it virtually impossible to disrupt terrorist attacks.

 

Lets see what they actually propose in parliament. Again, the government cannot just do what it likes. If it wants to change or implement new laws it needs to follow the process.

 

A manifesto uses imprecise language.

 

There is nothing really that ground breaking in there to that which has already been stated.

 

Remember - the people give the mandate to govern within limits. We actually have a representative democracy.

 

If you aren't happy with a law that gets proposed (after the election). Get on to your MP!

 

This isn't America. With distant representatives. They formally have to respond and if a large enough group of people object usually it won't happen.

[mark_cameron]

What I mean by the 'end-to-end' encryption debate.

 

Terrorists can communicate in real time about attacks using it with no possibility for security services to disrupt it.

 

That means they might be able to communicate faster than the police can. Whilst an attack is in progress.

That isn't an acceptable state of affairs is it?

[Lurick]

8 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

What I mean by the 'end-to-end' encryption debate.

 

Terrorists can communicate in real time about attacks using it with no possibility for security services to disrupt it.

 

That means they might be able to communicate faster than the police can. Whilst an attack is in progress.

That isn't an acceptable state of affairs is it?

Because agencies like the NSA do such a great job of building backdoors into stuff right? And we can trust them and other agencies not to abuse it because that would be wrong and we can trust people with power not to abuse anything, so let's put backdoors in all encrypted communications "for the children" and tell bad people who will exploit them not to do so because "it's bad and against the law".

[jaggysnake57]

19 hours ago, SurvivorNVL said:

UK is screwed either way.  Shame the BNP are gone.

do you know who the BNP are? and if you do im surprised you can type from your knuckles dragging on the floor but then again im surprised you can read in the first place

[XR6]

funnily enough, one of the biggest reasons why this is happening is so under 18s cannot watch 18+ content, although i find it hilarious as why would they want to watch it in the first place.

besides, the uk is just a big pile of sh*t nowadays

 

 

[mark_cameron]

1 hour ago, Lurick said:

Because agencies like the NSA do such a great job of building backdoors into stuff right? And we can trust them and other agencies not to abuse it because that would be wrong and we can trust people with power not to abuse anything, so let's put backdoors in all encrypted communications "for the children" and tell bad people who will exploit them not to do so because "it's bad and against the law".

Simple answer is this.

 

This is not America. We do not have a lunatic like Donald Trump in charge.

[XR6]

6 hours ago, Thony said:

What is it with UK politicians hating on Porn so fucking much ! Someone's husband must be much more interested in chicks online than in his own wife for fucks sake.

 

Instead of forcing a better sex education for young children they ban porn, like thats gonna make any difference...

 

Every day I see a massive billboard with an add for a fragrance that has a half naked seducive looking woman in her bra and underwear displayed outside a shopping centre in London. But that is not bothering any of those politicians. Fuck them....

Funny because there are millions of people (including kids) in london..

why did you do this dave

 

[Lurick]

Just now, mark_cameron said:

Simple answer is this.

 

This is not America. We do not have a lunatic like Donald Trump in charge.

If you honestly think that all these problems are because of him, you really are too dense to continue a conversation with.

None of the agencies across the globe have ever given a damn about the people and there are stories dating back decades of how they've used and abused all powers given to them. The UK is not some magical snowflake acting as a shining beacon of hope and if you really believe that, I sincerely hope you get your head looked at.

[mark_cameron]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

If you honestly think that all these problems are because of him, you really are too dense to continue a conversation with.

None of the agencies across the globe have ever given a damn about the people and there are stories dating back decades of how they've used and abused all powers given to them. The UK is not some magical snowflake acting as a shining beacon of hope and if you really believe that, I sincerely hope you get your head looked at.

 

*Shakes head slowly and rolls eyes*

[XR6]

Well then. I think after 2 months everyone will forget about this and it'll never happen. It's just sh*tty pre-election guff. We're not going to consider making an internet barrier like China's anytime soon, trust me.

 

[mark_cameron]

Just now, 1kv said:

Well then. I think after 2 months everyone will forget about this and it'll never happen. It's just sh*tty pre-election guff. We're not going to consider making an internet barrier like China's anytime soon, trust me.

 

Too busy being the 'shining beacon of hope' that we are.

[XR6]

Just now, mark_cameron said:

Too busy being the 'shining beacon of hope' that we are.

Basically the earth is a chessboard and the UK is in checkmate. If we do anything, we lose.

That's the direction we're headed.

 

[Lurick]

Just now, mark_cameron said:

Too busy being the 'shining beacon of hope' that we are.

Just make sure you shine that beacon with the shiniest object in the known universe

 

(Bender's arse )

[Master Disaster]

22 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

So they basically want to make their own damn internet but without blackjack and hookers?

Yep, and remember we invented the one with blackjack and hookers in the first place.

[mark_cameron]

1 minute ago, 1kv said:

Basically the earth is a chessboard and the UK is in checkmate. If we do anything, we lose.

That's the direction we're headed.

 

Oxford might be a -hole.

 

Where I live remains pretty nice. Lets see what happens. It is what it is. I blame Jean Claude Junker for where the status is at right now. Not a positive development.

[XR6]

3 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Oxford might be a -hole.

 

Where I live remains pretty nice. Lets see what happens. It is what it is. I blame Jean Claude Junker for where the status is at right now. Not a positive development.

oxford's alright, i moved recently from cirencester, and both towns were decent. i blame tony blair for getting our country into this. first iraq (which only made things worse) and now this. 

 

[bob345]

21 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

They'll never do it, it's just pre-election fluff. There is the cost first and foremost, and the country is skint. There are the business leaders, including importantly many Tory party donors, who will recognise that crippling the internet in the UK would be bad for business. Especially for the UK as we make very little, our economy is service based, services that could be very hard to export from behind a China style firewall. And finally the Government fucks up every IT project they touch, so even if they go ahead with it against all reason, it's unlikely to work, and will be so late that it could be killed off by the next government voted in before it was implemented.

 

Someone will take her to one side and explain all the reasons it's can't happen, and I expect we'll hear no more about it after the election.

Plenty of people said the same thing about brexit and donald trump and look what happened.