The UK seems to be hoping for some sort of lasting agreement from its gathering of governments and businesses at the London Conference on Cyberspace (LCC). Speaking at the conference, Foreign Secretary William Hague said it was time to “build on our common interests, developing firm ideas and proposals with real political and …
“We reject the view that government suppression of the internet, phone networks and social media at times of unrest is acceptable.”
Except when there are riots in London and whatnot.
The best thing (any) government can do for the internet
> getting governments and businesses to agree on how to promote and protect the internet
is to stop interfering with it. The one thing it will never need is their "protection".
He goes on to say "Nothing would be more fatal or self-defeating than the heavy hand of state control ..." which sounds to me like the same tone used to say "My esteemed colleague has my full support and backing" ... just before the knives go in. Presumably "fatal" and "self-defeating" are government newspeak for "desirable" and "best for us".
You just know that the more these lying 'stards say to promote internet (or any other) freedoms, the less they mean it and that it's merely mendacious claptrap while they work out how to control, restrict and tax it.
Human Rights and Censorship
Unless you're talking about BT's use of Phorm supplied covert communications surveillance for advertising.
Or TalkTalk's use of Chinese supplied communications surveillance & censorship technology.
Or Vodafone UK's use of Bluecoat communications surveillance & censorship technology to relay UK telecommunications to California for 'classification' and analysis?