Policing And Monitoring Of The Internet.
Posted 06 June 2017 - 08:53 AM Edited by Uncle Sikee Atric, 06 June 2017 - 09:21 AM.
Now I know some regimes already limit internet access to control the published media on it (China and the Democratic People's Republic Of Korea), but this is the first time a western power that has currently free and 'unregulated' internet access has suggested measures, doubly one that supports free speech and has a mass media beyond state control. Although these proposals are primarily aimed at extremists and their internet usage, what are the possible social issues involved if this sort of monitoring and policing are enforced and pushed into law, plus what ramifications would exist for the internet users and providers around the world?
While I know the Tech Section could discuss the issue with fields of obscure jargon and ways it could be done, in this discussion I would like to be treated more like a layman (While I do understand some of the jargon myself, others may not be quite as clear). I would like to keep the discussion more to the social side of the issue and the implications for the average daily internet user.
- The7thOne and DarkSavageDeathlyCloud like this
Posted 12 June 2017 - 02:20 AM Edited by Switch, 12 June 2017 - 02:26 AM.
The worst thing if you dont care about privacy in this case, is that this will probably hurt the UK more than it will help. I read somewhere that almost every tech company uses Github to some extend, and a lot of university students use it. Banning it would will hurt the economy indirectly that way. This won't stop anyone from going downtown and buying some knives... It's pretty clearly a way to get more control over the population, and if May cared so much maybe she wouldn't be cutting the sectors that work against terrorism. You either walk down this road of more government control or you don't, there is a reason it's called "China-style" internet censorship.
Posted 12 June 2017 - 07:29 AM
It's not that surprising. We are already surveilled more than many other nations in Europe. Even posting certain things on Twitter can, and has, landed people in front of a judge. It's just a small step from what we already have.
It would be wrong and inflammatory to claim that this is some sort of encroaching tyranny, but I do believe that our country has less regard for personal liberties than many other nations. And, in truth, few people here will care about internet censorship.
Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:03 PM Edited by SA's Most Wanted, 16 June 2017 - 10:09 PM.
At the end of the day, I reckon you need to judge whether or not you feel like the outcome is worth it.
Would you like to know that there's a chance all you're doing is being monitored; but know that it'll likely help foil extremist plots,
or know that you have your so-called 'privacy', (baring in mind, practically everything you do nowadays is logged anyway), but have the risk of having online chatter going unnoticed etc.
I understand why it's so controversial, and like @Typhus has just mentioned, the U.K. is the most surveilled country in Europe, which is one of the reasons the UK is typically regarded as a nation which is able to foil terrorist attacks, regardless of the unfortunate events recently in London & Manchester, before these last 3 months, the last major Terror Attack here was in 2005.
The point is, there is a price on having all this 'freedom', because for many, they'll go over the line, and take advantage of it, which is why there are restrictions put in place to limit that, which is understandable, but it's also understandable that people don't want various restrictions, they don't want to be watched etc. It's quite a conflicting thing.
If May cared so much maybe she wouldn't be cutting the sectors that work against terrorism.
Genuinely, it's quite painful when you think of how she's f*cked up certain Public Services such as the Police Forces nation-wide as her time as Home Secretary. I mean can you be expected to run a country, if you can't even ensure the protection of your own people by maintaining your police forces etc. Not just with terrorism, but with other crimes too of course. Okay, from time to time there has to be cuts in certain things in order to benefit elsewhere, I get that fully, but would you really want to be making cuts to the Police Force? I feel like that's really screwed her over, honestly... she's digging her own grave now. Ever since she called that snap election, I can't imagine that she's going to get another term in office after this if she doesn't sort her sh*t soon enough. I guess she'll be judged on her ability to sort out the Brexit Negotiation talks now, she's got a lot on her plate with her deal with the DUP, the fact she no longer has a majority gov. (and seems to be losing more support), with Brexit, the sudden recent terrorist attacks in the UK, and with this Fire in West London, (which she seems to be pissing a number of people off about). She just really needs to up her game now.
Posted 02 August 2017 - 09:48 AM Edited by Uncle Sikee Atric, 02 August 2017 - 09:50 AM.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd is currently in Silicon Valley, trying to talk to internet firms about using AI and protection regarding extremist and other criminal material.
This is almost funny because of the Facebook shut down of their AI routine, it was 'becoming too smart' and beginning to hint at the foundations of it's own language, even though the language was just shortening existing words in new ways....
Before she went, these intriguing comments from Rudd appeared and seemed to suggest the average person wanted little to no internet security on their personal details!
How stupid does she think we are, or does she think government does have every right to read each and every bit of private detail on the internet?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users