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
Related Stories
El Reg reports that the coalition government in the UK wants to push through a new surveillance law that forces ISPs to keep data for 12 months.
It's the latest in a series of attempts from the Theresa May-led Home Office to legislate on communications data, known colloquially as the snooper's charter.
The latest bid to revive May's unloved plan comes after a recent decision from judges in the European Union's highest court ruled that the Data Retention Directive was "invalid".
We really are doing our American cousins proud.
A one week emergency process to pass laws to fill the legal gap left behind by the striking down of the EU Data Retention Directive has resulted in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill being passed in the House of Commons. The bill received support from all three major parties and was passed with a huge majority, despite criticism for the process and content of the bill:
"The government won a large majority of 387 on its proposed Commons timetable for the legislation, as MPs agreed by 436 votes to 49 to complete consideration of the bill in one day. MPs subsequently approved the general principles of the bill at second reading by 498 votes to 31, a government majority of 467. It later passed its third and final reading by a comparable margin of 416 votes."
During the very short lead time between the announcement of the bill and it's reading in the House of Commons, senior labour leadership expressed support for the content of the bill but reservations about the speed of the process. The Conservative MP David Davis made a speech in the House of Commons in which he also criticised the process, describing it as "entirely improper", likening it to "democratic banditry resonant of a rogue state", and accusing infighting between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat factions of the ruling coalition of causing the three month.
The legislation also drew fire from many civil liberties groups and commentators. The Open Rights Group post a scathing analysis of the bill criticising the emergency nature of the bill and asserting that the bill will significantly extend data retention scope and enforcement jurisdiction, to the contrary of previous assurances by Home Secretary Theresa May that the bill would closely replicate the powers of the withdrawn EU Data Retention Directive. Isabella Sankey, the Policy Director for Liberty commented on the group's blog that this was a closed-doors agreement between the party leaders designed to evade democratic oversight and pass legislation equivalent to the previously abandoned Draft Communications Data Bill, otherwise known as the "Snooper's Charter".
The bill has now moved on the House of Lords, where it must also be approved before it becomes law.
UPDATE 17-07-14: The bill has now cleared the House of Lords and is becoming law. The criticism to the timetable for passing it has resulted in the insertion into the bill by the opposition of a six-monthly requirement for the Interception of Communications Commissioner to report on usage of the powers granted and to ensure that "same as the EU DRD" does genuinely mean that. It also means the EU Court of Justice's assertion that the EU DRD "[entailed] a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, without that interference being limited to what is strictly necessary" now applies to this new law as well.
The Open Rights Group is planning to challenge the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) bill in court as it ignores a European Court ruling that "blanket data retention is unlawful and violates the right to privacy".
The ORG believes that it can stop the bill coming into force, on the basis that it countermands a European court ruling that blanket data retention is unlawful and violates the right to privacy, breaching human rights.
Jim Killock, director of the ORG, said: "The government has ignored a court judgment, ridden roughshod over our parliamentary processes and denied the public the debate they deserve. But people do care about their privacy and they do care about government stitch-ups.
"Blanket data retention is unlawful and we will fight against this legislation. Our message to Theresa May is: see you in court," he said.
The ORG believes that DRIP breaches the European convention on human rights, the European charter of fundamental rights and the UK's human rights Act.
The Guardian reports:
Theresa May has reportedly moved to quash an attempt by her cabinet colleague Sajid Javid to improve mobile phone coverage by warning that the plans could aid terrorists, according a leaked letter.
[...] May argues in the leaked internal Whitehall letter that Javid’s plans to end “not-spots”, by allowing customers to roam between rival networks, could aid criminals and terrorists. The Times reported that May’s objections centre around concerns that roaming would make it more difficult for the agencies to track suspects.
In the letter, extracts of which have been published in the Times, May says that national roaming “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.
A top secret report to the British prime minister has recommended that a new international treaty be negotiated to force the cooperation of the big US internet companies in sharing customers' personal data, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners said the decision to classify the report, written by the former diplomat Sir Nigel Sheinwald, as top secret was designed to bury it and said its key recommendation for an international treaty could provide a legal, front-door alternative to the government's renewed "snooper's charter" surveillance proposals.
It is believed the former British ambassador to Washington concluded that such a treaty could overcome US laws that prevent web giants based there, including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo, from sharing their customers' private data with British police and security services. It would also mean not having to revive the powers – which require British phone companies to share data from the US giants passing over their networks – from the 2012 communications data bill that would enforce their compliance.
Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group said: "The Sheinwald report should be published. Any attempt to hide it can only be interpreted as an attempt to close down debate about whether the snooper's charter is really needed. A new international treaty is the right approach to cross-border requests for data by law enforcement agencies. This approach undermines Theresa May's claim that there is a need for a new snooper's charter when there is a simple, transparent and workable solution."
But the Cabinet Office defended its decision to keep the report secret [sic]. It said Shinewald "reports on progress to the prime minister but... is not undertaking a public review". The Guardian understands the report has been classified as top secret by the Cabinet Office because it goes into the detail of each company's operations. Shinewald was appointed by Cameron in September 2014 as his special envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing.
Original Submission
Australia's Attorney-General's Department hasn't worked out when money to support telcos' and ISPs' data retention efforts will start to flow.
The department, left in the hands of Grand Sysadmin George Brandis in Malcolm Turnbull's cabinet reshuffle, has been criticised by the Communications Alliance for being vague about the funding arrangements.
The industry had asked for government funding to help it adjust to the demands of data retention, which require the collection of user IP addresses, e-mail headers, and similar data. This has to be stored and secured for a minimum of two years, accessible to whichever agencies the government decides to grant access to.
It seems ISPs will have to take the "garden shed" storage option if they haven't the spare cash for data retention, because the government doesn't know when its promised support package will commence.
Alliance CEO John Stanton told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM radio program the best advice available from the AGD is that the money – AU$131 million allocated for this financial year – will flow sometime in this financial year.
The UK government will tomorrow publish draft legislation to regulate the use of encryption and require ISPs to log which websites their customers visit for a year. The government has previously expressed irritation at the idea of some communications being out of government reach. There is an (inevitably toothless) petition.
The silver lining is perhaps that the government still cannot comprehend that not all secure communications involve a communications provider. The government appears to be using the door in the face technique, making the bill as over the top as possible so they can appear to compromise later.
UK Home Secretary Theresa May was grilled on Wednesday during the last evidence session held by the Parliamentary committee scrutinizing fresh powers proposed for GCHQ.
Crucially, she was unable to explain to the panel exactly why Blighty's intelligence services need the ability to intercept and retain millions of innocent Britons' data in bulk, as well carry out bulk hacking operations, which would be strongly authorised if draft law – the Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) – is passed.
While the joint committee was pleased that GCHQ's bulk surveillance and hacking operations are being brought completely within parliamentary reign for the first time, having previously been effected through royal prerogative, the panel noted that the agency's sweeping powers have not yet been justified in operational terms.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/13/theresa_may/
-- submitted from IRC
Police and security services will be able to see names of sites visited in the past year without a warrant, under the draft Investigatory Powers Bill.
The science and technology Committee says its requirements are confusing, and firms fear a rise in hacking.
The Home Office said it would study the report's findings.
When she announced the draft bill last year, Theresa May stressed that the authorities would not be able to see individual web pages visited, just basic data, such as domain names like bbc.co.uk or facebook.com.
The information would, of course, only be used for 'official purposes'.
The European Court of Justice has issued a major post-Brexit-decision ruling invalidating the UK's mass surveillance powers:
"General and indiscriminate retention" of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU's highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK's new Investigatory Powers Act – the so-called snooper's charter.
Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime – including terrorism – is justified, according to a long-awaited decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.
The finding came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ's bulk interception of call records and online messages.
[...] Daniel Carey, the solicitor from Deighton Pierce Glynn who represented the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, said: "The court is very clear that indiscriminately retaining everyone's metadata is unlawful, which is a point my clients placed particular emphasis on. This prohibition arises out of longstanding EU legislation, which the UK played an important role in creating."
Also at NYT, WSJ, BBC, Bloomberg.
Ruling press release: The Members States may not impose a general obligation to retain data on providers of electronic communications services (PDF)
[Ed's Note: minor edit to first sentence at 232017zDec16]
Prime Minister Theresa May has not abandoned her usual crusades:
On a break from Brexit, British Prime Minister Theresa May takes her crusade against technology giants to Davos.
"No-one wants to be known as 'the terrorists' platform' or the first choice app for pedophiles," May is expected to say according to excerpts released by her office ahead of her speech Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "Technology companies still need to go further in stepping up their responsibilities for dealing with harmful and illegal online activity."
Don't forget the slave traders.
Luckily, May has a solution... Big AI:
After two years of repeatedly bashing social media companies, May will say that successfully harnessing the capabilities of AI -- and responding to public concerns about AI's impact on future generations -- is "one of the greatest tests of leadership for our time."
May will unveil a new government-funded Center for Data Ethics and Innovation that will provide companies and policymakers guidance on the ethical use of artificial intelligence.
Also at BBC, TechCrunch, and The Inquirer.
Related: UK Prime Minister Repeats Calls to Limit Encryption, End Internet "Safe Spaces"
WhatsApp Refused to add a Backdoor for the UK Government
UK will hold social networks accountable for harmful content
The UK government plans to penalize tech companies like Facebook and Google that fail to curb the spread of harmful content on their platforms. As promised, the country is seeking to empower an independent regulator to enforce the rules which target violent material, posts encouraging suicide, disinformation, cyber-bullying, and child exploitation. Over the coming weeks, the government will consult on the types of punishments available to the new watchdog, including fines, blocking access to sites, and holding senior members of tech companies accountable for their failures.
Both Facebook and Google have previously denied responsibility for the content published on their sites, evoking the communications act in the US to overcome lawsuits accusing them of enabling terrorism and spreading extremist views. But calls for big tech to be regulated have grown in recent years following a spate of controversial incidents, the most recent of which was the live-streaming of the mass shooting in New Zealand on Facebook.
Related: UK Security Agents Get Censoring Privs at Youtube
UK ISPs Block Sites that List Pirate Bay Proxies
Website Blocking and Unblocking on Opposite Sides of the World
UK Prime Minister Repeats Calls to Limit Encryption, End Internet "Safe Spaces"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday June 06 2017, @06:41PM (3 children)
Lets get rid of end to end encryption for politicians. Maybe once a few of them get their bank accounts drained they'll start to wonder if maybe they should first figure out what it is, what it does, and why it's important.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @06:46PM (1 child)
Ha ha. You think she's including herself in this removal of encryption? That's not how it'll work. "National Security Interests" and all that.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:53PM
Just imagine citizens classifying their own documents and communication "top secret" and arresting government employees for surveillance.
Follow the leader.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:03PM
No, there will be rules, classes, need to use, etc.
As an ordinary citizen, you have no need to use encryption. As soon as you have access to "State Secrets" that's another matter entirely.
Then, there's the Banking industry, they obviously get whatever they want.
The promulgation, distribution and enforcement of the complex rules will create a new job sector - labor will vote for it.
The interpretation and prosecution and defense of this new class of laws will generate a new sector of legal practice - the barristers will back it.
The complexity and vagueness of the laws will create ample opportunity for arrest under pretense of violation - law enforcement will be on board.
We can thump on security, bombs blowing up babies, to justify why we're voting for it to the public - nobody should lose the next election for backing it.
Is it good or bad for overall security? Does that really matter to the people who are pushing it? The politics checks out, that's all that matters. God save the Queen, full steam ahead, keep a stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on (that last bit is juicy irony.)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @06:46PM (34 children)
Just about every terrorist has been reported before, MULTIPLE TIMES. If I didn't know any better I would say that being reported as terrorist turns one into a terrorist. But the reality of the situation is a lot shittier, and that is there are tens of thousands people who have been reported as terrorists. The government won't tell you this because one: It will scare the shit out of you, and two: underline the fact they can't handle it. How the fuck are you going to vet that many people and monitor them for the next couple of years? Impossible.
So if they can't keep tabs of the known people, how are they going to cope with a lot more people on the radar once they start snooping all the messaging on top of it? They can't and they won't. Won't people get pissed off if they give them all these powers and there will still be a weekly terror attack?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @06:52PM
Clearly, the problem of the security services is that the haystack is not big enough.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:10PM
> So if they can't keep tabs of the known people, how are they going to cope with a lot more people on the radar once they start snooping all the messaging on top of it? They can't and they won't.
They won't and they won't care. The push for pervasive control has begun well before the terrorist/refugee crisis. The crisis, a manufactured one (you don't take military vessels near Libya coastline to save refugees and transport them all the way to Italy because "it's inevitable"), offers one good reason to shove what has been prepared down our throat.
Terrorists pick on everyday people (like they always do) and let politicians enact whatever rule has been dictated by the level above them. Symbiosis.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:27PM (16 children)
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]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:54PM (15 children)
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)
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
We're they just using SMS before?
(Score: 2) by J053 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:04PM (7 children)
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
France.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:39AM (1 child)
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:07AM
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
Australia :-P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:01AM (1 child)
Nauru
Manus Island
Mars
Vietnam
Ethiopia
Pick one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:01PM
Washington, DC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:54AM (4 children)
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)
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)
What?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:40PM
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
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.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:31PM
One of the London attackers was waving an ISIS flag around in a channel 4 documentary called "Jihadi's next door". For. Fucks. Sake! [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:37PM
That's actually only the first step in the thought process. The next one is that of the tens of thousands of people who have been reported as terrorists, the ones that carried out these acts were amongst the ones that were either not considered enough of a threat to be vetted and monitored or were vetted and deemed not to be a threat. This is despite such red flags as being reported by an Imam (amongst several others) for being too radical, being banned from their mosque, filmed with an Islamic State flag, filmed discussing radical ideologies, filmed making ideological threats and being physically violent, suspected of trying to travel to Syria... All that kind of makes you wonder just had bad the ones that *are* being more actively monitored are, and why (according to the last official count) there are just *seven* people in the UK subject to a form of house arrest called Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures that was specifically brought in after 9/11 to deal with threats in the absence of enough evidence to prosecute.
Quite clearly the security services don't have the means or resources to adequately deal with the specific targetted information they are getting already - and I'm sure it's not for want of trying on their part. Collecting even more entirely random data in bulk isn't going to achieve anything except to highlight that failing all the more when the attack happens - the issue isn't one of data; it's having the resources available to process the data that is already there, and the will to take approriate action on it rather than fretting about being seen as politically incorrect.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:50PM (6 children)
Theresa May is a Tory. Tories are obsessed to the point of mania with cutting costs, especially in public services. Before she was made Prime Minister, Theresa May was Home Secretary, i.e. in charge of the Police. To cut costs, she cut the number of police officers by tens of thousands.
The intelligence, military and police services already have more surveillance data than they know what to do with [wikipedia.org].
They don't need new and more draconian powers. They need more human beings to do the work.
They are so understaffed that the work does not get done.
This is what you vote for when you vote Conservative [conservatives.com]. It's why the NHS, Schools and other public services are at breaking point. It's the Tory way.
Strong and stable. 8th June.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:16PM (2 children)
Interesting that The Economist endorsed the LibDems.
I was mildly surprised, but not very, and I definitely see their point.
Maybe it's time for the centrist labourites to split off from The Corbyn Party and talk to the LibDems about a renewed Liberal Party?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:32PM (1 child)
Ah, you mean like the SDP [wikipedia.org]?:-)
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:35PM
Pretty much. Lord knows they can hardly do much worse.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:11AM (2 children)
> This is what you vote for when you vote Conservative [conservatives.com]. It's why the NHS, Schools and other public services are at breaking point. It's the Tory way.
Alas, we need to pay for what we spend. At the moment, the expenditure is larger than the income. Who can fix that? The magic Labour party fairies? The only way to fix it is either (i) increase income or (ii) decrease expenditure or (iii) borrow to death. Labour have historically opted for (iii) - which is a stupid policy. I don't believe that they have declared a plan for massive increase in taxes; so I assume they will just borrow more and more, leading UK further towards heat death.
At least the Tories have a strategy to deal with this fundamental, structural flaw in the UK economy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dublet on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)
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.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:45AM
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.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:44PM (3 children)
LOL AC thinks the enhanced powers would be used to go after terrorists. LOL the government likes those people. The enhanced powers would be used to go after people complaining about the government not protecting them, people noticing the government plan of demographic replacement.
The enhanced powers would be used against "legacy citizens" not against terrorists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:52AM (2 children)
This sort of racist hysteria is what fans the flames of extremism. The tragedies of Manchester and London Bridge happened literally because of xenophobic remarks like that. Don't think that your bigotry will go unnoticed; an ASBO will be issued for you shortly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:13AM
That's bullshit. They will carry on with their terrorist and replacement agenda regardless whether you do something about it or not. So you might just as well.. do something about it. A strict cold analysis is that the replacement initiative have far worse consequences than any current terrorism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:09AM
They said that in Australia. Can't offend the muslims. They will riot, be violent, etc. Oh no. Pacify them then they will not come at us.
If one person speaks and the response from another is violence then the second is in the wrong.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 06 2017, @11:59PM (1 child)
Perhaps a large enough computer, hidden in a building in the desert, and connected to every single form of digital communication could do the trick. I wonder if anyone already thought of this. Hmmmmmm....
Also, security theater.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:38AM
I'm honestly surprised that most people still believe it is impossible. I calculated once the drive space needed to store all telephone communication data in the U.S, getting my data from the U.S census as to the number of people. Google has more drive space than that now. It only took about a couple hundred million dollars to buy the drives, and I estimated the data center cost between 1-2 billion total. Bottom line, it could be done for the price of a stealth bomber for certain.
That's before speech to text and the accompanying reduction in storage size. Once that happens it makes it trivial to build a larger data center and start working with data day by day, week by week, and then with years worth of data. As technology scales it becomes more possible, not less. Our communications and information production isn't scaling nearly as fast as our capabilities.
People still believe that they cannot do anything with that much data. Again, wholly incorrect. Topological data analysis has evolved quite significantly. Forgetting that for a moment, a husband and wife team already gave the Justice Department software and algorithms to sift through telephone metadata and infer groups and relationships. It worked well. That was like 10-15 years ago. TDA can predict you at your girlfriend's home next week eating her pussy, while you were supposed to be at work.
The more information the better for TDA, no matter how stupid or silly, or worthless it seems. TDA can cut through the noise, the perceived randomness of it all, and give uncanny predictions. AFAIK, the field is already being used commercially by big players to predict consumer tastes, preferences, sexual orientations, political affiliations, etc. The Republican party used the tech in the election, but the biggest use of it was the custom AI controller for the Hillary campaign. Which I know doesn't help my case, cuz it didn't predict the outcome very well ;)
Combine communications metadata, social networking information, GPS location information culled from many sources, government records, medical records, CCTV coverage, satellites, and even the gossip of the old lady on the corner, and you have the The Eye of Horus. It's not mystical, but technological, and truthfully, it's already here.
Heck, FFS, we're modeling entire universes right now to figure out the Big Bang. We most certainly do have the hardware, software, and infrastructure to pull it off. We invented this Internet thingy to connect us all and make it that much easier!
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @06:53PM (16 children)
This is Brexit for you. Yet another example added to already too many.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Arik on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:00PM (3 children)
At least *she* stands for election and might in theory be voted out for her idiocy.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:13PM (2 children)
At the moment, they are on the record with pretty much the exact opposite. Are you in possession of some super secret document discussing a change in their plans? ;)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:07PM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:51PM
So, super secret document it is then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:14PM
Well if only people would let her MAKE A SUCCESS OF BREXIT then she would have time to show STRONG AND STABLE LEADERSHIP. It's the annoying losers in Britain who hate themselves and use encryption just to spite her - they are ruining STRONG AND STABLE LEADERSHIP possibilities and threating the outcome of MAKE A SUCCESS OF BREXIT. Why don't the Britain haters who don't vote for May just stop using encryption and threatening security - maybe it's time to arrest some terrorists?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:44PM (10 children)
Theresa May was talking about this stuff before Brexit, when she was Home Secretary. She was actually anti-Brexit, but she did want one specific bit of EU influence gone: the European convention on human rights [theguardian.com].
EU Rules Against UK "Snooper's Charter" Data Retention [soylentnews.org]
But recently, she said she would stick with [independent.co.uk] the convention on human rights:
And of course, days later after that announcement you have attacks in London and on innocentz at pop starlet concerts.
Now, maybe the UK's march into totalitarianism would be incompatible with the EU's pesky human rights conventions and courts... but:
Assailant at Paris' Notre-Dame reportedly said, 'This is for Syria' [cnn.com]
Doesn't look like civil/human rights will be a problem much longer.
hhHHHhhhmMMMMmmm... yup, freedom is dead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:00PM (1 child)
I don't think the French will be that stupid. They won their freedom in a very hard way and are very protective of it. I know quite a few French people and talk to them daily about these things.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:06AM
Then why are they allowing these people in their country?
Kick them out.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:49PM (1 child)
She literally just tweeted:
Man, I sure hope her party get's their ass kicked in thursday's election.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:45AM
As if I needed another reason to hate May.
Anal-ysts say that the terrorist attacks aren't going to sway voters away from May. We'll see.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:18PM (5 children)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
> And of course, days later after that announcement you have attacks in London and on innocentz at pop starlet concerts.
Innocentz? Just how innocent are these people, from bombers' point of view?
We are dealing with asymmetric warfare here. On one hand, we have a broad coalition of some of the most advanced states, including USA and UK, bombing several middle-east countries pretty much daily. Not even mentioning the river of arms flowing from the allies and into SA, who use it to bomb Yemen. Not mentioning the frying of the planet. So you got the strongest teaming up against the weakest, and stomping them into the ground, without even a pretense of declaring a war. Drone bombings kill civilians almost by design, and every single such bombing is an act of terror directed against the peaceful population in the hope of forcing them to abandon the hope of self-governance. Large-scale actions against IS-held cities are true acts of war, and it's hard to see what else can be done there, but the drone situation is really clear-cut, making USA (and also its dog-like partner UK) THE principle #1 terror force on the planet, committing more atrocities around the world than all the other terrorists combined, and against the weakest, most vulnerable people, too. This is asymmetric warfare at its finest, and now UK is dealing with a response.
I do not encourage anything like bombing a British concert, but I can not condemn it, either. Many (likely, most) people present there, far from being innocent, are directly responsible for the actions of the UK government, because it's the government they elected. This is even more true in USA, where on both sides of the isle the agenda is ruled by bloodthirsty hawks. The societies, USA and UK, are some of the most free and most informed in the world. Say what you want about limitations on the political speech, but other countries have it even worse. If there is a populace that elects officials based on free exchange of information and opinions, USA & UK is as good of an example as any. The public keeps voting these murderers into office with full awareness of what the murderers are going to do.
The fact on the ground is, UK is at war with a bunch of peoples in the Islamic world, and Islamic terrorists in UK are responding to that unjustified aggression with what is essentially a military action. They are blowing up people responsible for the setting fire to the middle east, and a few truly innocent people (like Corbin voters, who dare to vote for politicians with PEACE on the agenda) get blown up along the way, just like with drones. Of course, if they could, these terrorists would start with May, or drop a tactical nuke on a weapons factory in UK, but remember the asymmetry imposed on them? They are simply going with the most effective military option they can afford. It has a terrorist component, but it also has a straightforward component of going after the very people wielding the power, and responsible for mis-using that power, which is THE PUBLIC in a functioning democratic society.
There was a funny topic here recently, along the lines of what UK could do to reduce the incidence of terrorism, with people interrupting each other discussing police presence, intelligence, encryption, and gun control (?!). How fucking dumb are these people? What do these things have to do with preventing a hundred or so deaths per year caused by actions which are almost completely unpredictable? Terrorists spit on police, because police is not everywhere. They spit on intelligence & encryption, since they hatch their plans in virtual isolation, and can do so without the net, if need be. One unbugged room in London is all it takes. The stupidest topic here is gun control: not only a uniformly armed crowd of slightly drunk sobs would make most sane people shit their pants, what good will it do against a suicidal maniac with a runaway lorry or a chest bomb?
Why not stop bombing the middle east? Why not vote for peace? Why not unite and stand firm against the #1 rogue state in the world? The bombings will stop instantly. And while at it, why not redistribute income in a way that's not atrociously unfair, so that poor and disenfranchised Englishmen and Frenchmen have something better to do than blow up concerts?
~ Anonymous 0x9932FE2729B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=CYPx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:43AM (1 child)
I think the median age of an Ariana Grande concert goer is close to the voting age, if not lower. So the attendees are literally not responsible for electing the eeeevul government. I guess the teenagers could rise up and take over [wikipedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:06AM
he did it outside the gate, where parents were picking up kids, and out of 23 people dead on the scene, only 10 were under 20 years old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:20AM
And when these poor people get to the top of the power pyramid. They will stop initiating wars and frying the planet? ;-)
I don't think so. Instead they will add a abusive state of affairs for everyone with theological oppression and dog-eat-dog. I think that just suck and has no benefit.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:58AM
How quaint. Somebody thinks voting for politicians actually changes anything. FUCK YOU. I'm not responsible in any way, shape, or form for the drone attacks. Zero responsibility.
Voting never does jack diddly shit, and if you need members of the public to blame, then blame the 1%. They're far more responsible for who gets elected, and what gets done by a politician after election, who gets thrown under the bus for token justice when needed, what economies get gamed, etc. Greece has a legitimate cause to invade the U.S when Goldman Sachs acts like the biggest terrorists on Earth and tanks the Greece economy, deliberately, for profit. I won't mind you killing the top members of the 1%, as they are responsible for terrorizing more people in the U.S and on Earth, than your terrorist buddies.
We're not responsible, but hey, continue to be dumb fucking shitheads and bomb us instead of using all that terror money just to pay a few contracts to get high level people killed. You think we would really object to you taking out the heads of the U.S military-industrial complex? Think again. Those parasites take around half of all the taxes we pay. Kill them, and we might be able to fund education, single payer health care, advanced infrastructure, etc.
Nah, bomb some people at a concert. That's real fucking effective in bringing peace to your people.
9/11 sucked, but at least it targeted Wall Street. That did more to change politics than anything else, and it certainly was not in your favor. Stop attacking innocent people with practically zero influence in their governments. If you honestly think it is war, and that you are ethically justified in a response, you don't go after non-combatants. Go after military targets.
Yet, even in the Middle East, you go after non-combatants. Convenient that you left out that Boko Haram, where there isn't a huge Western influence to kill and oppress people there daily, attacks their own people. The threat comes from the inside quite a bit in the Muslim world.
Ohhh, and then perhaps we could talk about the ongoing terrorism, for hundreds of years, between Shites and Sunnis. But don't let facts get in the way of your arguments attempting to legitimize terrorists.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 06 2017, @06:56PM (11 children)
Seriously, you'd need to be dumber than snake mittens not to see this for what it is: a transparent, fascist power grab. She's worse than goddamn Thatcher.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:09PM
Murika should have shown by now that the current issue in the modern arena is not so much the assumption that we're stupid. Just taking advantage of fear and complacency. It'll work.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:11PM
I'd take Thatcher over Labour any day. One's an asshole, but the other truly is a Fascist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:23PM (1 child)
She's worse than goddamn Thatcher.
Yeah? Well Trump is worse than Reagan, so we're even, ok? This is what the voters want. Let's learn to accept it, at least until you come up with something better than majority rule, which really has hit the brick wall.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:23AM
One partial solution is clever workarounds on a individual level or in cooperation with others to render the government meddling useless.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:41PM
How many years was Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister?
A) 900 years
B) 3,000 years
C) 11 years.
Of course, they want you to say 11 years.
And that makes me think that it must be A) 900 years.
It was a very, very long time.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by purple_cobra on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:13PM (5 children)
Trouble is that there are still people - and quite a few of them, at that - who think Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister we've had since Churchill. They are, of course, wrong; were some of the reforms she rammed through necessary? Yes, of course. But the way she got them enacted - and for some background on this, take a look at the miners' strike and in particular, The Battle of Orgreave - were vicious, spiteful authoritarianism that poisoned industrial relations between workers, especially the former public sector that were then privatised, and the Conservative Party from that day to this. That 'Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead' made it to #2 in the UK charts the week Thatcher died is indicative of her popularity. The BBC wouldn't play it on the radio either, the spoilsports.
If May is returned as PM, the public sector in the UK will cease to exist. She is desperately trying to move the focus away from the fact that she cut 20000 police officers whilst Home Secretary, officers who would have been invaluable in knowing, for example, who in the community was spending all their time indoors reading jihad leaflets. Her campaigning has been so awful - not that the tabloid press have moderated their sycophantic arse-kissing - that she is likely to be deposed immediately, with rumours of Boris "by name and by nature" Johnson to replace her. There are no heads of state in waiting in the Tory party, no-one who even looks the part, much less could act it. For all Corbyn in a suit looks like an estranged uncle at a wedding, he's still a more acceptable head of state than Johnson. Johnson is a tool who appears to think we're still the head of a large empire rather than a small island nation being propped-up by our rapacious financial services sector, a sector that is looking longingly at EU countries as there's no point staying here any more. Johnson is the idiot who wanted to build a pipeline to carry water from Wales to London, despite being told it was just about the stupidest idea ever by every civil and structural engineer in the UK; the idiot who insults the European Parliament then trots over there thinking they didn't read any of it in the press; the idiot who got stuck on a zipline; the list goes on. He is a committed European who voted to leave the EU to further his own ambitions as a potential Tory leader in waiting. And as he's the best of them, you can imagine how bad the rest are. He is a turd given human form and I'd rather he didn't become PM.
May is also only comfortable with an earpiece in, so my concern is that she's losing her marbles. If true, that would make her the bastard lovechild of Thatcher and Reagan that no-one had the wit to strangle at birth. No, I'm not a fan at all.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:15PM
Yeah, I see it as either a BS excuse for power gain or just real honest stupidity. If removing all encryption was actually possible, only law abiding citizens would stop using it. The criminals would still find a way to use encryption. Even without encryption there are plenty of other ways to communicate in code. Criminals could just choose to chat in video games like Payday 2, which could easily disguise the true nature of their conversations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:17PM (9 children)
This article jarred something loose in my mind that'd been awash in metric fucktons of bullshit for the last few years... All those people whining about "safe spaces" are just suckling from the same propaganda teats that want to ban encryption. It is funny how in American politics most people on both sides have literally become their own worst enemies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:02PM (3 children)
Thank you for your comment, your time is up. You may step down from the podium, please.
The adults in the room are trying to have a conversation RE: encryption. We don't need someone chiming in with their two cents and turning the conversation into a partisan 'damned libruls' rant. You and the PM are using two vastly different definitions and applications of the phrase 'safe spaces' and yours is inaccurate. Do not conflate the two usages. There are things in this world known as 'subtle differences'. There are lots of them and lots of them are very VERY important in today's political landscape and life in general. If you fail to take the subtle details into account before you act, you'll eventually find out the hard way. We're lead by a (thankfully diminishing) group of nitwits who refuse to see the subtle differences and instead barrel on full steam ahead with no regard for the consequences because after all, God will save us all in the end. Except he won't, since he's moments away from totally destroying this world in hellfire and brimstone anyway since water didn't work well enough last time. And this group of people will find out the hard way that they missed a few very important subtle details in the world.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:15PM (2 children)
Sorry; try again.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:52PM
lmao
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:55PM
The interesting thing is, I'm not even sure what side he was trying to claim it as a rant for. The cognitive dissonance and projections have gotten so ridiculously bad among people like that they all pretty much look like textbook cases of someone not capable of making such decisions for themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:54PM (4 children)
Your post is a Rorschach test. Who do you think have been whining?
Because the only people I see complaining about safe-spaces are people like kaszz who are damned fucking sure that safe-spaces are making pansy-ass liberals into the real fascists™. But guys like that can't provide a single example of this existential threat. I'm pretty guyszz like that are a lot closer to May than they are to Corbyn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @11:29PM (1 child)
I hear a hell of a lot of whining about people who want safe spaces for this, that or the other thing.
I want my safe space because I was traumatised! Because I was oppressed! Because I was micro-bullied with micro-aggressions! Because Peter Thiel is still alive! Waaah!
Or maybe that beanbag-and-legos cry for safe spaces wasn't exactly what you meant by whining?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:49AM
I just want a safe space for my illegal science experiments.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:23AM (1 child)
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.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:24PM
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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:42PM (1 child)
May: I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation [theguardian.com]
Just as well we're leaving the EU, then, or we wouldn't be able to do that since we'd be obliged to remain signed up to the European Court of Human Rights [coe.int].
Who needs Human Rights [coe.int]? I don't need Human Rights because I haven't done anything wrong. Only criminals need Human Rights. Am I right?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:47PM
Your guardian link is newer than mine [independent.co.uk], but still check out my comment above.
Maybe the EU will eliminate human rights faster than Theresa May can pull out? It's a race to the bottom!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:55PM (3 children)
Britain is a step or two ahead of the United States on the Orwellian scale. They have CCTV cameras everywhere, and the GCHQ monitoring every communication in that country. They don't even have to wipe their ass on a Bill of Rights to do it.
So why isn't anyone in that country asking the obvious question: why do they suck so bad at their job of preventing terrorism? It hasn't even been a full month since the last such attack, has it? Could it be that all their Orwellian behavior does nothing to stop the thing they say it's for, and in fact only destroys the freedom of its citizens?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday June 06 2017, @08:07PM (2 children)
Automatic facial recognition (AFR) technology has been used to arrest a man, the South Wales Police told Ars. [arstechnica.com]
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @11:36PM
Oh boy! Oh, goody gumdrops! One arrest! By Jove!
After all the expense and fuss, I would have thought that there would have been total control of all dissident factions and a return to a peacefully bucolic existence, untroubled by any crime more significant than the occasional disorderly drunk.
.... still waiting ....
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:15AM
Next thing will be for potential criminals to obscure their faces...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:59AM
This is just so ridiculous and dangerous. So what good ideas are there to circumvent this rubbish? I'll suppose ISPs will be obliged to block or report the usual tools.
(Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:00AM
Internet repeats calls to limit UK prime minister.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:41PM
we caused this problem in the first place and/or didn't do our jobs so give us more power so we can fix it! how about fuck you?