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 Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:09PM
Some days ago I made a comment on SN which is similar to yours, about the nature of wars and what are legitimate targets in wars. I pointed out, like you do, that there is no distinction between so called legitimate and not legitimate targets in a war. Not legitimate targets of the victor will be declared "collateral damage", while not legitimate targets of the victus will be declared "war crime victims", but they both were "useful kills" in a war, because the intended purpose of their killing was to chill the will of another side to fight or to support the fighting, and although the sides in symmetric wars will usually not readily admit that, killing civilians or threatening to kill them is the essence and main leverage of war activities, which is obvious to anyone reading history.
However, you are making a step further and conjecturing that unilateral end of hostilities on one, stronger side, would automatically bring peace and end terrorism.
I am sorry to tell you that (IMHO), you are wrong.
You can't know that, and from what I gathered about the terrorists and their motives from publicly available information, they are not attacking the world just as a measure of retaliation.
Their motive is proactive and ambitious, not reactive. We could discuss about the causes which lead to them making their case for war, but it has become irrelevant now, unless we want to learn about not making such mistakes in the future.
The conclusion I am drawing here is that we must understand that we are in a war and that we all are targets of the war, weather we are willing to admit it or not.
It is not much different situation (except in scale) then, e.g. WW II. It means we can't live like there is nothing going on, we must change, adjust, analyze and devise proper strategy on the large society level, as well as useful measures on all levels down to the individual level. Perhaps the menace of terrorism will finally force us to abandon our habit of crashing together, and embrace the future where information travel and bodies stay secure unless really necessary.