Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday June 06 2017, @06:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the birthing-big-brother dept.

Some things in life are very predictable... the Earth continues to orbit around the Sun and Theresa May is trying to crack down on the Internet and ban/break encryption:

In the wake of Saturday's terrorist attack in London, the Prime Minister Theresa May has again called for new laws to regulate the internet, demanding that internet companies do more to stamp out spaces where terrorists can communicate freely. "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed," she said. "Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide."

Her comments echo those made in March by the home secretary, Amber Rudd. Speaking after the previous terrorist attack in London, Rudd said that end-to-end encryption in apps like WhatsApp is "completely unacceptable" and that there should be "no hiding place for terrorists".

[...] "Theresa May's response is predictable but disappointing," says Paul Bernal at the University of East Anglia, UK. "If you stop 'safe places' for terrorists, you stop safe places for everyone, and we rely on those safe places for a great deal of our lives."

Last month New Scientist called for a greater understanding of technology among politicians. Until that happens, having a reasonable conversation about how best to tackle extremism online will remain out of reach.

End-to-end encryption is completely unacceptable? Now that's what I call an endorsement.

[more...]

Prime Minister's statement. Also at CNN, Foreign Policy, Ars Technica, The Register, and BBC (emphasis mine):

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said on Sunday that tech firms needed to take down extremist content and limit the amount of end-to-end encryption that terrorists can use.

[...] The way that supporters of jihadist groups use social media has changed "despite what the prime minister says", according to Dr Shiraz Maher of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) at King's College London. They have "moved to more clandestine methods", with encrypted messaging app Telegram the primary platform, Dr Maher told the BBC. Professor Peter Neumann, another director at the ICSR, wrote on Twitter: "Blaming social media platforms is politically convenient but intellectually lazy."

Now Ms May says that she won't rule out simply "taking down" the "rogue internet companies" like China has.

"I think what we need to do is see how we can regulate," she told the Evening Standard, in response to a question on restrictions on the internet.

The prime minister was then asked if she would rule out "Chinese-style cyber-blocking action".

She only said that she would "work with the companies" and gave no explicit commitment that she wouldn't introduce censorship and restriction regimes like the ones that operate in China.

Source: The Independent

Other Sources: MIT Technology Review

Previously: EU Rules Against UK "Snooper's Charter" Data Retention
Theresa May's Internet Spy Powers Bill 'Confusing', Say MPs
UK Home Secretary Stumbles While Trying to Justify Blanket Cyber-Snooping
UK Wants to Ban Unbreakable Encryption, Log which Websites You Visit
Data Retention in Australia: Still a Shambles Ahead of October Rollout
UK Sheinwald Report Urges Treaty Forcing US Web Firms' Cooperation in Data Sharing
UK Home Secretary: Project to End Mobile "Not-Spots" Could Aid Terrorists
Open Rights Group To Take Government To Court Over DRIP
House of Commons Approves UK Emergency Data Retention Law
UK.gov Wants to Legislate on Comms Data Before Next Election


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:27PM (16 children)

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:27PM (#521511) Journal

    It seems that about 40-50 people have died due to terrorism in the UK since 2005 (52 died in the July 7th, 2005 attacks [wikipedia.org]).

    That small number of deaths is enough to push through broad new surveillance powers and waste time debating lame encryption bans. And you (Brits) pay for it.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:54PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:54PM (#521528)

    It seems that about 40-50 people have died due to terrorism in the UK since 2005

    14 deaths from 2007 to 2015 and 37 since March this year.

    All of the perpetrators in the latest 3 atrocities were known to security services. Banning or backdooring crypto is nonsense and the government fucking know it.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:14PM (14 children)

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:14PM (#521546) Journal

      All of the perpetrators in the latest 3 atrocities were known to security services.

      Good point. It makes "incompetence vs. false flag" a legitimate debate.

      Having said that, Theresa May's proposal to deport terror suspects directly addresses this issue of perpetrators known to security services.

      Crypto bans? Not so much. If it happens, terrorists will either continue to use encryption or switch to a mix of steganography, code words, and dead drops. Or draft message folders on webmail providers less well known than Gmail.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:22PM (#521551)

        We're they just using SMS before?

      • (Score: 2) by J053 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:04PM (7 children)

        by J053 (3532) <{dakine} {at} {shangri-la.cx}> on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:04PM (#521613) Homepage

        Having said that, Theresa May's proposal to deport terror suspects directly addresses this issue of perpetrators known to security services.

        And you propose to deport UK-born UK citizens to...where, exactly?

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:48AM (#521678)

          France.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:39AM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:39AM (#521692) Journal

          Theresa May specified foreign-born, not UK-born.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by J053 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:04PM

            by J053 (3532) <{dakine} {at} {shangri-la.cx}> on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:04PM (#522139) Homepage
            But, as I recall (and I could well be wrong), all of the "terrorist" attacks in the UK for the past several years have been conducted by UK-born UK citizens. So, again, how is May's proposal going to help anything?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:07AM (#521709)

          Ship them to some camp hosted in a country of a bribable African government. Cheap and humane. Keep men and women separate so they won't procreate and to protect the women and children.

        • (Score: 2) by migz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:37AM

          by migz (1807) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:37AM (#521779)

          Australia :-P

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:01AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:01AM (#521816)

          Nauru
          Manus Island
          Mars
          Vietnam
          Ethiopia

          Pick one.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:01PM (#521869)

            Washington, DC

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:54AM (4 children)

        by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:54AM (#521825)

        It makes "incompetence vs. false flag" a legitimate debate

        No, of course it doesn't.

        As AC already pointed out [soylentnews.org], it's a numbers problem. They have a potential-terrorist watchlist which does tend to contain the real 'future' terrorists, but it's got tens of thousands of people on it. There's just no way to act on it meaningfully.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @10:17AM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday June 07 2017, @10:17AM (#521828) Journal

          Of course, of course!

          :^) times one million

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:06AM (1 child)

            by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:06AM (#521836)

            What?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:40PM (#522204)

              The GP intended to write one million of courses, but got bored after the first two.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by oldmac31310 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:28PM

          by oldmac31310 (4521) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:28PM (#522027)

          Seriously, a few people die due to terrorist attacks every few years. Big deal. Sad indeed for family and friends of the the deceased, but really who else really gives a fuck? Surely various diseases are more of a concern. Traffic accidents? Terrorism is aptly named. It strikes fear into the mass population but in fact it kills very few. It is the bogey man of our times.