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 edIII on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:23AM (1 child)

    by edIII (791) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:23AM (#521745)

    Wasn't it Berkley or some other uni in California that had violent protests and continually cancelled appearances by anyone controversial on the alt-right?

    That's an example of the safe-space crowd ranting that they have a right to create spaces safe from dissent, culture, morality, and ethical interpretations they don't like. Ironically, they don't create safe spaces, but light fires, beat people up, and then have law enforcement crack down while decrying totalitarian fascism. Those people are literally protecting their safe space so that Milo doesn't make them cry. Which is censorship and stupidity. There are a section of liberals that might as well be fascists, encouraging censorship and political correctness to fucking insane levels.

    Safe spaces make liberals and progs look fucking ridiculous, because of how many people can't tell the difference between the safe-spacers and people just trying to fight the far right. I'm very progressive, and can lean liberal, but I will die defending Milo's right to speak. Even though I can't stand the stupid shit that pedo says. TMB says some pretty dumb shit around here on occasion (although not according to him), but he absolutely has the right to say it. SN wouldn't be a place I would want to come to if TMB wasn't allowed to say whatever he wanted. I'm not interested in being in safe spaces, but interested in being in free and equal places.

    If you can't defeat the alt-right and White Nationalists with logic, words, and reason, than you have failed. These people need to stop fucking it up for the rest of us that can.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:24PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:24PM (#521963) Journal

    Actual violence (distinct from mere vandalism which may at times have legitimate uses) is of course totally unacceptable. However...you seem to be asserting that Milo's right to free speech also entitled him to a platform for that speech, which is not at all true. There's absolutely no conflict in defending free speech rights while simultaneously protesting the university providing their resources in support of his speech.

    You have a right to say whatever you want. You don't have a right to make people who don't want to hear it pay you for that speech. The students are entirely justified in protesting how their tuition dollars are being spent. Freedom of speech does NOT mean that I can't ask you to leave if you start shouting profanity at me in my own home. It means you can say what you want in YOUR home or in public.

    Same goes for safe spaces, often misunderstood by people on both sides of the issue. The point is supposed to be about providing a space/platform/resources to people who don't traditionally have them. Which is fairly orthogonal to the issue of free speech itself. Of course, if you start ONLY giving those resources to specific groups then you've gone into full discrimination. It's a complicated issue though, along the lines of affirmative action -- do we mandate that there can be no discrimination, and just hope any failures are prosecuted fairly? Do we try to give just enough advantage to a currently disadvantaged group so that they have equal opportunities available? Or do we try to give them MORE advantages because they're starting out further behind after years of discrimination? Ideally we just help people who need help instead of basing it on statistically disadvantaged groups, but on the other hand when being part of that group is the REASON they were disadvantaged it's not an entirely stupid idea to try to ensure the group as a whole reaches statistical parity, particularly since that's far more feasible than analyzing every single individual.