SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:33PM (4 children)
Corbyn?
Head of State?
I don't think that you're in any position to talk about people losing their marbles.
For starters, in the UK the head of state is the crown. Unless you know something I don't about a republican revolution on the horizon, I think that's not a hot prospect. Odds for the next five years? 200:1 against, is all I'd take.
Second: Corbyn? Really? Corbyn? The outspoken admirer of Hugo "Venezuela can suck it" Chavez? The chap who wants to nationalise everything except the pubs? Gawd help us, I'd sooner a parade of chinless charlies and Sir Humphreys. They'd achieve nothing whatsoever and that would be more benign than La Revolucion according to Corbynus Maximus.
Trump is praying for Corbyn's ascent to power, to make him look good by comparison. I'd sooner vote MRLP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:43AM (1 child)
So the UK situation is like this?
* Conservatives: Lead by a surveillance fascist with a document falsifying minister in wait as a replacement?
* Labour Party: Islam appeaser and connected. That want to nationalize just about anything?
* Crossbenchers: ?
* Liberal Democrats: ?
What a choice.. I'm sure the voters won't be swayed by some propaganda.. ;-)
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Thursday June 08 2017, @05:59PM
Conservatives - Broadly speaking, I suppose. They're not especially interested if you earn less than a couple of hundred thousand per year. Increasingly anti-foreigner in an attempt to gain the UKIP vote.
Labour - Connected to what? I don't think he's an appeaser of anyone, apart from some (with hindsight) iffy comments about the IRA, but if that moved them even half a step closer to talking to people instead of bombing them, I'm in no position to call it useless appeasement. Thatcher's government also had dialogue with the IRA, but the type of press that tend to shout about Corbyn tend not to mention this. The nationalisation thing is a little too complex to reduce into a few sentences; for clarity, it might make more sense if you take a look at the manifesto. That's a cop-out on my part, I know, but it's not something that's trivial to precis.
Crossbenchers - That term really only applies to the Lords AFAIK. There are quite a few smaller parties though: SNP (Scotland), Plaid Cymru (Wales), UKIP (seemingly pointless now we're actually committed to leaving the EU; they had a single MP who recently left the party, so they have none ATM), The Green Party (environmental issues, probably more left wing than Labour; I think they have one MP).
The Lib Dems - Claim to be centre-left and that's probably accurate. The leader has attracted some negative publicity for his faith, but he doesn't have a record of voting conservatively (e.g. gay marriage) so it's not really a fair criticism to throw at him. Not that the tabloid press are in any way fair if you aren't a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Thursday June 08 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
The queen is only the ceremonial head of state. She performs no duties of being a head of state apart from nodding, smiling and waving. Were the entire line to die out overnight, nothing of value would be lost.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:02PM
Actually my comment is not fair; some of them do raise the profile of a number of different charities, worthwhile work regardless of my feelings for the monarchy as a whole.