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: 3, Insightful) by dublet on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)

    by dublet (2994) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:27PM (#522078)

    The problem with your argument is that (iii) isn't by definition a bad thing. Governments can borrow money rather cheaply and invest it in projects, which in turn increase income (i). This effect is called the fiscal multiplier [wikipedia.org]. It describes how doing (ii) actually can cause reduced economic activity. A case in point is the Greek economy. The IMF et al insisted on massive cuts in the government budget and as a result there's been a multi year depression.

    The UK has also been doing quite poorly in terms of economic performance by just doing (ii) and only recovered from the 2008 recession several years after the USA, which opted for (iii).

    Politicians always like to compare a country's fiscal position to that of a household but last time I checked, the average household does not issue its own currency and bonds, nor can it inflate away debt. An interesting example of this is that the UK until very recently was still paying interest on some war bonds dating back to the Battle of Waterloo [theguardian.com](!). This because it was cheaper to have them on the books than to pay them off.

    I'm afraid that the Conservative Party manifesto is the more economically illiterate one and actually self harming.

    A further point is that the Labour manifesto has tax rises in it, so there's no magic involved.

    As a side note, while I live in the UK, I support neither the Conservative Party nor Labour.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:45AM

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:45AM (#522494)

    I've heard that argument before. I am not a mercantilist and I take your point. But I think that at the moment, the UK national debt is at a point where HMTreasury are struggling to pay off the interest. It's gone too far. I know that labour proposes some small increase in taxation, but they also explicitly state that they plan to borrow. I don't think that this is a sustainable policy.

    ps: I voted libdem in the end, not that it matters as I live in a safe tory seat. Tax and spend seems like not a bad policy right now.
    pps: I thought that the UK was a net creditor during the Napoleonic wars. I might be wrong.