UK PM May's response to London terror attack: Time to 'regulate' internet companies British prime minister Theresa May's statement in response to the terror attacks that saw seven people murdered in London on Saturday night has again called for internet companies to make life harder for those who would discuss hateful and violent ideologies. May's statement calls for four changes in the way the UK combats …
We should ban book stores.
Clearly people who hang out at book stores know how to read. And book stores sometimes contain subversive material (Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, Playboy. and the like). WE MUST NOT LET ACTUAL READERS READ INDISCRIMINATELY!!!!11one!!!!11!!1!!!eleven!!1one Next thing you know, they'll be actually TALKING about such matters!
Does the idiot woman realize how bloody stupid she sounds?
This post has been deleted by its author
"Does the idiot woman realize how bloody stupid she sounds?"
Sigh.
If the idiot *voter* realized how bloody stupid it sounds, then she wouldn't say it
Remember that it's the same woman who decided to lead Brexit after campaigning for Remain for 2 years.
She only does what the majority wants to see
"Remember that it's the same woman who decided to lead Brexit after campaigning for Remain for 2 years."
I've always been a bit sceptical about that - I expected her to come out in favour of Leave.
And looking at now, with the way she's been going about it as PM, I still find it surprising that she came down on the side of Remain.
The sums. They don't add up.
"The sums. They don't add up." (c) Diane Abbott
More seriously, this is yet more shameless opportunism, which both main parties have done over the years. Mandarins want more control over Internet, talk minister into it, something happens, minister grabs opportunity. Then the part that doesn't get publicised: did it work, if so provide some level of evidence, and if not, provide both ministers and the mandarins loads of free personal publicity and P45s.
>The sums never add up with politicians because their numbers are all based on getting reelected and staying in power. How can you tell if a politician is lying ... their lips are moving.
Now, they also appear to lie if posting on Twitter as well. We can no longer rely on the lips moving to predict non-truth.
I tried reading Mein Kampf. (Some time ago, when I read that there were steps being taken to ban it, I decided I should read it while I could still easily find it on the internet.)
I didn't get far. It was the most boring and mind numbing experience that I can remember. The only people who would want to read it (apart from academics, etc) would be people who want their existing views confirmed by an 'expert'.
Book stores are limited to an extent to what they can sell. Like it or not, there is a level of censorship.
The difficult bit is having a sensible discussion about what to do about the Internet. The Government doesn't get it, but nor do the people who believe that anything should be allowed.
And many publishers refuse stupid books that are just violent propaganda. You don't earn money publishing and distributing them, so you don't - even if you don't have an ethic.
Mein Kampf has been for a long time forbidden in Germany - because one thing is to read it for historical or psychological reasons, another to believe in it - and its blood trail is too huge to ignore it.
Sure, you can still find terrorism propaganda books in some "underground" channels, but you have to be already involved, and their diffusion is quite limited. Not that they didn't caused their share of victims - just look at political terrorism in Europe in the 1970s-80s - and their attempts to look for more people in factories, schools and universities. I lived those years, and saw how some people could be influenced by violent propaganda.
Instead Google & C. can monetize even small, very dangerous contents, publishing them worldwide. Propaganda works, and can be very dangerous. People like to remember "1984" - but also, remember "Animal Farm" - and remember it was forbidden in those paradise that was the communist block....
Whilst this is certainly true, any nefarious sort will just use other systems or open source stuff, the net result will be nefarious types will continue to use under the radar tech and carry-on using technology and encryption - The rest of us, Citizens, will have our own security compromised, as the Government wants a "Skeleton Key" to everything we do, from Banking, social media, to internet searches, to looking at porn or anything else. So the net result is we don't get safer, but we all suffer more predictive data analytics based on all the data being hoovered up on us (just like Facebook or Google but with a Government spin). We won't need YouGov or ComRes you will know what people will vote for in polls, the analytics will tell you to 98% accuracy.
"Where I live (Finland) there actually are laws against hate speech. So no Mein Kampf or other Nazi propaganda at bookstores."
In the UK too, but they are generally restricted to public places and terrorism related. Enforcement is patchy to say the least.
Many of Theresa May's speeches could be considered hate speech, like many politicians she targets a minority and rallies the majority against them. In Mein Campf it was the Jews and Communists, for TM it's immigrants and technology companies.
"like many politicians she targets a minority and rallies the majority against them."
This. We don't have any prospective leaders amongst the current lot that I can see.
Each of them identifies a section of society and tries to rally the rest of us against them by stoking fear, envy or both. Rich v poor, young v old, Scots v English, working v unemployed, indigenous v immigrants, leave v remain, religion. All of them are using divide and conquer tactics to try and stand on some section of society to lever themselves up into power.
A true leader would be able to stand up and speak to everyone without demonising some part of society to do it. To win by a majority, rather than simply being the largest minority as seems to be the aspiration at the moment, a leader would be able to say things in a way that makes the minorities feel like they were being heard, considered and respected, and the majorities that while they feel entitled and right, might also like to consider the opinions of people on the other side of the argument, who incidentally are not tory scum, left wing whingers, feckless single mothers, idle unemployed etc, they are just people with a different opinion. They all preach black and white binary arguments, and life is not like that.
You think Corbyn is an honest politician? Ah, so you are therefore an idiot who supports total communism, want free stuff for everyone then!
You support some of tory policy? So you are therefore an idiot and a miserable git who takes food from the mouths of babies, kick crutches from the disabled and enjoy anumal cruelty!
The problem with this childish binary view is that if your politics are centre ground and you can see some good in all (or most) camps, then you are not going to indicate support for anything or anyone because whatever you said is going to be reduced until it fits into one of the pigeon holes, at which point you become tory scum or a left wing idiot depending on who you were speaking to and which pigeon hole they managed to insert you (not your opinion) in. So both sides of any argument have a perfect echo chamber to reinforce their views in.
Show me a leader who is not jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon and can stand in front of us all and say stuff that includes everyone without putting down some section of society in the process, and I'll vote for them. United we stand!
Sorry, rant over, but I got a load of election shite through the door this morning and then I read this. It has given me indigestion. Beers all round before that gets banned!
But some people like demonising.
There's more than a few people who think first strike on NK or glassing parts of the Arabian desert would solve problems.
Maybe we should wonder why this lot seem to have a decent voting block in the UK?
Banning the Daily Heil as hate speech would be tempting.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Many of Theresa May's speeches could be considered hate speech, like many politicians she targets a minority and rallies the majority against them. In Mein Campf it was the Jews and Communists, for TM it's immigrants and technology companies."
And as soon as she is in power she will start rounding them up and executing them.
Or not.
So no Mein Kampf or other Nazi propaganda at bookstores.
Which is a pity - you cannot compare her rants with that and observe the nearly 1:1 plagiarism.
IMHO, that is wrong too. We should adopt the significantly more enlightened Irish attitude to this. I was on a tour around the Dublin castle a few weeks back and the guide was asked:
Q: "Why are you preserving all this artifacts from the British rule?"
A: "We like to TURN the pages of the book of history, not to BURN them".
There is a lesson to be learned there - we should neither BURN them ourselves, nor support anyone who does so.
> Try this library link:
OK, I stand corrected and humiliated. Got to reserve that one via the Helmet system... But common it isn't, the only Finnish copy I have come across was in the bookshelf of an old farmhouse, where it probably was acquired pre-war. Sitting there next to an edition of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", an almost equally infamous book.
@MacroRodent, as somebody claimed, it's a dull book, I gave up around page 30. Surprisingly popular though in England, second only to Germany according to the Wiki. Something in the air then I hope we don't have to smell again.
Long ago in Gosport a British customs guy left by accident his "black bible" with us in the yacht. And, of course, we had to check it with great interest. There was a list of forbidden books too and the only title I still remember was "The sexual life of Robinson Crusoe". And yes, I must admit that when I read Robinson Crusoe as a kid that aspect did not enter my mind.
My respect for the people who decide about books too dangerous for us to read got a dent forever, but I admit there is probably stuff on the internet that should be deleted as long as we don't make too much fuss about it, especially in front of an election. Nuts are nuts regardless of the internet.
No.
Funny how over the last decade "The security services have intercepted dozens of threats" yet come election time and a contentious (and confusingly named) new law is going through parliament we have a pair couple within a month.
BTW that terrorist threat in perspective.
Since 7/7/05 there have been 36 deaths due to terrorism in the UK.
That's 4hrs 3 mins of the annual deaths related to smoking in NHS hospitals for 2014.
That's 7 Days 13 hrs and 40mins of UK read deaths in 2015.
Or 3 additional deaths a year since 2005.
And let's not forget who has been in been in power for most of that time and who was the Home Secretary.
I asked a colleague whether he worries about driving to work after a fatal accident is reported in the news, when he said there was no way he go near London after the Westminster attack. The discussion ended with me being effectively told that I shouldn't put these things into context.
I had said that it's pointless to worry about terrorism is you don't worry about all the things that are more likely to kill you, and I don't want to live my life jumping at every shadow.
Some years ago, in the days before the Internet, I was told that the police had visited the company that I worked for and we were all advised to take a different route to work each day - no problem, if fact I still vary my routes to and from work (it makes life interesting) although I never figured out why driving different routes helped when the end-points never changed.
Most of the "advice" from the authorities is for public consumption to calm everyone and give the impression that "something" is being done - if seems that the authorities never bother to put themselves in the terrorists shoes and think how to get around the new laws and regulations. It's never very difficult.
If the end it's society that has to change - hate and discrimination, on all sides, has to be eliminated - it's no good just suppressing it or pretending that it doesn't exist - America proves that doesn't work.
That's called cherry picking the data to support your argument.
Why "since 7/7/05"?
Why not since 6/7/05?
Well because the number then jumps from 36 to 82, which doesn't look quite so rosy.
"And let's not forget who has been in been in power for most of that time and who was the Home Secretary." - Well Labour were in government from 2005-2010, and Theresa May became Home secretary in 2010. And let us remember that, during her tenure as Home Secretary & as PM many terrorist plots have been successfully disrupted by the security services. Far more than have actually been carried out in the UK as a matter of fact. If you're willing to credit her with failures in our security when they happen should you not also credit her with successes too? I don't even support the current government but everyone deserves a fair hearing.
"If you're willing to credit her with failures in our security when they happen should you not also credit her with successes too?"
The thing that makes the failures so egregious is that they seem inevitably to involve people known to the police or security services or who have been reported by alarmed acquaintances or family.
But the real problem with her, right from her Home Sec. days, is her concern with the internet and particularly with her obsession of treating everyone who uses it as suspect. This abandoning of the presumption of innocence is a more drastic blow against British values than anything terrorist organisations could manage on their own. It's a major indirect victory for them. And what could she gain by all this? Terrorists are already breaking the law; is providing another law for them to break going to be effective? Those who would be affected by her attacks on the net will be lawful users. This Home Office-sponsored action is something akin to an internet auto-immune disease.
Online, internet, onljne, cyber, encryption,online, did I mention online?
People fear what they don't know or understand, often they will attack or try to destroy what they fear, when in reality, they should embrace their fears and come to know and understand them.
Or we could get rid of Teresa May.
> This abandoning of the presumption of innocence is a more drastic blow against British values than anything terrorist organisations could manage on their own. It's a major indirect victory for them.
"Indirect victory" you say that like indirect victories aren't their aim. Terrorism isn't direct action, they cannot possible kill everyone who disagrees with. Indirect victory is the only type of victory they can achieve and every indirect victory is a real victory..
(Playing devil's advocate here... )
"82, which doesn't look quite so rosy."
True ... but not as huge a leap as to make it significant compare to other causes
"during her tenure as Home Secretary & as PM many terrorist plots have been successfully disrupted by the security services"
Says who? Do you have a (verifiable) list?
"If you're willing to credit her with failures in our security when they happen should you not also credit her with successes too?"
Not when you read this: http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know
Thanks for the pointer to http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know
It includes delights like this:
"The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years."
Not the first time stories like this about the "intelligence" services have emerged.
Worth a proper read. Spread the word.
Thanks for the pointer to http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know
You know he's a nutter, right?
He also thought Trump would be a less dangerous president than HC.
He also said that Obama was "a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan" and his theme "was the renewal of America as a dominant, avaricious bully". This about the man who won a nobel peace prize and was widely criticized for not taking action.
> Why "since 7/7/05"?
> Why not since 6/7/05?
> Well because the number then jumps from 36 to 82, which doesn't look quite so rosy
@Gif1, 82 vs 36, doesn't look a great deal less rosy. Still pales in significance to the deaths caused by road traffic accidents, smoking, air pollution, domestic violence (probably).
> That's called cherry picking the data to support your argument.
Not as much as picking a 6/7/05 as the start date. Would have been simpler if he just said in the past ten years.
"many terrorist plots have been successfully disrupted by the security services. Far more than have actually been carried out in the UK as a matter of fact."
Citation for that matter of fact, please. Part of the issue is that there are no figures to sustain that notion in the public domain.
If you're willing to credit her with failures in our security when they happen should you not also credit her with successes too?
Seems fair enough, but what successes exactly? I don't see much evidence of the successes they claim. Without evidence they have foiled the plots they claim, and evidence that they are plots in the true sense of the word, they are no better than numbers plucked from their backsides.
Some suspect they are exactly that, or exaggerated to give the impression they are doing a better job than they are doing or to legitimise the power grabs they have made.
It's one thing to claim a number for plots foiled; entirely different to proving that.
"I don't see much evidence of the successes they claim. "
And yet there *is* some well-hidden evidence of particularly strange 'intelligence-related' goings on in the 'judicial system' in the last few years, and evidence of attempts to keep some of it as quiet as possible, in unprecedented ways.
E.g. The arrest in 2013 of two Londoners and their subsequent largely-secret trials, in which the intelligence services threatened to withhold evidence unless certain names were kept secret, in which only state-approved 'accredited journalists' were permitted in court at all, and were anyway excluded from much of the proceedings and prohibited from making notes inside or outside court, and so on [1], seems to break many principles of what was once considered 'British justice'.
The goings on in the trial of Erol Incedal are too weird to meaningfully summarise here, but have to an extent been reported elsewhere, e.g.
http://thejusticegap.com/2017/01/proof-magazine-secret-trial-erol-incedal/ might be a place to start.
ps
anyone remember who was Home Secretary, in charge of all these strange goings-on?
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11222799/Erol-Incedal-secret-terror-trial-jury-discharged-and-retrial-ordered.html (11 Nov 2014)
"Britain’s first “secret” terror trial has to be rerun after the jury in the case of alleged terrorist Erol Incedal was discharged.
The 26-year-old law student is accused of plotting to target former Prime Minister Tony Blair or to carry out a Mumbai-style rampaging gun attack on the streets of London.
But the jury was dismissed by Mr Justice Nicol after four days of deliberations and a retrial is due to take place in the New Year.
But the public cannot even be told the reason why the jury was stood down and are still in the dark over what evidence it was considering because more than two thirds of the "extraordinary” trial was heard in secret.
Other parts were only heard in front of ten accredited journalists who cannot report anything due to stringent court orders.
The case has fuelled concerns that it is damaging the centuries-old tradition of open justice.
The move followed a successful application by the Crown Prosecution Service supported by ministerial requests from the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to have the case heard entirely in private on grounds of national security.
The Crown had warned that there would be pressure for the trial not to go ahead if it was heard in public.
The draconian measures were only partly relaxed following a challenge by media groups, including the Daily Telegraph, at the Court of Appeal.
[...]
He was stopped driving a Black Mercedes E class saloon for a traffic offence on September 30 last year and a listening device planted in the car.
A search of the vehicle uncovered a number of "significant items" including a white Versace glasses case with a piece of paper which had an address for a property owned by Tony and Cherie Blair.
[...]"
See also e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31989581 (26 March 2015)
"On 13 October 2013, armed police blew out the tyres of a car near the Tower of London. That much we know for sure about the arrest and prosecution of Erol Incedal for preparing for acts of terrorism.
Since then, he has faced two trials for preparing for acts of terrorism. But what was his alleged plan?
Well, we simply do not know - and the jury at his retrial has decided it did not buy whatever it was being told he was supposed to have done.
This has been the most secret prosecution since World War Two - and it has ended with the only defendant being cleared.
A few journalists were permitted to hear to some of the secret Old Bailey sessions - but they will go to prison if they reveal what they learned.
The rest of us were allowed in to Court Nine for some brief open sessions - but most of the time the doors were locked.
[...]"
All very strange.
The difference here is that people CHOOSE to smoke, whilst no one chose to be run over by ISIS.
So, by your reckoning, 36 deaths so far - how high does that number have to go? 100? 200?
As you may recall, it was all well and good to put the boot in when it was Irish terrorists - what's changed now?
Unable to keep the citizens safe despite virtually unlimited resources and all-pervasive surveillance.
It's a failed model
Perhaps a performance based system
1. No budget increase EVER (get smart or get out)
2. A 5% permanent reduction in the remaining annual budget for every "intelligence" failure
Deliver or piss off
She sounds bloody stupid, but the alternative is admitting an underfunded police can't join the dots or it can but can't keep track of everyone at once and she underfunded them. It seems the attackers for both Manchester and London were reported to the police.
I hope Labour use this line of attack (defence) instead of standing there and taking it because it's too soon after the attack, when she inevitably parrots the usual vacuous insults given to her by Crosby.
'the alternative is admitting an underfunded police can't join the dots or it can but can't keep track of everyone at once and she underfunded them'
And what level of Police funding would prevent all terrorist attacks? How much more funding would have prevented this one. What wouldn't you be able to do because you'd spent all the budget on what is actually a relatively minor risk to life?
And what level of Police funding would prevent all terrorist attacks? How much more funding would have prevented this one. What wouldn't you be able to do because you'd spent all the budget on what is actually a relatively minor risk to life?
I imagine funding for 20,000 more police, which is what her cutbacks translated into in real life, would have come in useful. Also see this.
"it's difficult to see how extra 'bobbies on the beat' would make any difference for this sort of crime."
The general consensus from top Bobbies is that more officers in community policing builds relationships with the community, making it more likely that things get reported. Secondly, when people in the community do report "radicals" and nothing is done about it, an approachable community officer could have their ear bent about "why has nothing been done?".
May, by removing community officers, has created a gulf between the communities where radicalisation may occur and the security services.
Set atop that the fact that the last 2 incidents have been carried out by people who have been brought to the attention of the security services by the community, it doesn't look too good for the PREVENT program.
Some quick math though, 20,000 less offices and 1000 less firearms officers -> 3000 on the watch list, equates to about 7 officers per "free radical". I can't see how May and Co can possibly defend those numbers, especially since the Police Federation told her in no uncertain terms that she risked security by slashing numbers.
"How much more funding would have prevented this one."
Hard to say but inevitably we're told after the event that the offenders were either known to the police/security or that concerned acquaintances or even family had made reports which seem to have been ignored. So a combination of more funding and a redirection of funds away from mass surveillance might have borne some results.
"inevitably we're told after the event that the offenders were either known to the police/security or that concerned acquaintances or even family had made reports which seem to have been ignored. So a combination of more funding and a redirection of funds away from mass surveillance might have borne some results."
Interesting, isn't it.
When I were a lad, many people's local copper lived at the end of the street, was known to the community, and people asked him for help and kept him in the picture if anything dodgy was going on locally.
How many police have that kind of community relationship today?
At the opposite end of the police hierarchy in recent years we've seen the Association of Chief Police Officers Ltd have a senior officer in charge of anti-terrorism. In one case that role appears to have included running a selection of undercover cops in legitimate peaceful protest organisations (e.g. Mark Kennedy/Stone), undercover operations which led to the arrest and trial of dozens of members of those organisations, and then the trials collapsing when the kennedy/stone came out and threatened to reveal more than he should. And it turns out Kennedy/Stone was far from the only one.
Readers might want to look up who at ACPO Ltd was in charge of those undercover operations. His name has been around a bit more recently in a different context - investigating News International for phone hacking, and declaring them innocent, until someone finally took the job a little bit more seriously.
The same name is also in the frame for unfortunate occurences relating to the police killings of JC de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson, and... well you get the gist.
But enough about Andy Hayman [1], for now.
As well as Hayman, the Met's heads of anti-terrorism have included Cressida Dick, in charge of counter-terrorism in the Met in 2011, and as of earlier this year, in overall charge of the Met. She was also quite close to the shooting of JC de Menezes.
Elsewhere there's the decades of police lies (and evidence tampering) about Hillsborough, and the lies and fake evidence re the Birmingham Six, and so on. Before we even start thinking about cases like Steven Lawerence.
There's plenty more where that comes from but you get the idea.
Might it not be nice if the public could actually trust the police, and if the various Home Secretaries over the years had done something about *that* as well as a clearly ineffective "war on terror"?
[Please take it as read that I condemn violence, terrorism, etc].
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8640523/Andy-Hayman-The-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-thick.html
While striking the right cord (logic), at the same time you appear to be occupying an alternative time continuum, the world full of 7 bilion logical people.
I live in this world where I honestly can't expect anything from any politician other than what I've heard in the last 2 days, and none have disappointed me. Both in the UK and abroad, in every layer of political scum pond, local and national, there's general swooping onto this fresh slaughter to do what they always do: peck and peddle their own little agenda and score a few brownie points.
And as the voting masses in my world do not vote with logic (and don't read, past the 150 characters), they expect "something" to be done about what they do know, i.e. facebook, google, and oh, the internet thinny, exactly in this sequence. Do something. Whatever, just "something", so that their sense of comfort can be restored. And the poor PM only dispenses the usual placebo (wicked, filthy rich internet giants!), cause she knows no cure, but placebo will do, as always. Well, at least for the next 4 days.
As usual, those far-sighted, German-speaking continentals always lead the way:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40097792
https://www.infowars.com/germany-62yo-woman-fined-1350-euros-for-sharing-anti-migrant-joke-on-facebook/
https://news.vice.com/article/german-lawyers-seek-to-criminally-charge-facebooks-zuckerberg-over-hate-speech
The winds of change are now blowing across and inspiring this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/nazi-pug-man-arrested-after-teaching-girlfriends-dog-to-perform/
Armed police, teddy bears and candle-light vigils are clearly not enough. Seems that capturing, categorizing and purging everyone's online thoughts and speech is the only way forward. Also much easier (and possibly more lucrative) than chasing after armed terrorists.
My only questions are: will these laws be applied solely against evil old ladies and Scottish dog-trainers? Or will people advocating the mass murder of civilians be impacted as well?
Think carefully before you answer. And remember that reading the above links may soon put you on a watch list.
Three attackers jumped out of a van wielding knifes = tighter control of Internet.
Suicide bomber in Manchester = tighter control of the Internet.
Attacker in SUV plowed people on bridge = tighter control of the Internet.
...
It seems the current PM has it in for the Internet vs investigate/track/apprehend actual terrorists. Stop attacking the Internet (free speech) and start doing your job! The failure starts with you, PM/leader, and yet no acceptance of failure or responsibility...what a bitch this one is!
(Where's the press asking regarding her utter failure to security?)
>Hang on ... Do I read that right? The House of Saud is paying ENGLAND $110Billion for weaponry? Is this the same England that can't seem to manage to field a decent Navy or Airforce? Sounds more like bribery to me ... What happens if you try to follow the money?
$110bn was to the Yanks. Our deal was smaller than that, but still £3.3bn since 2015.
Lots of screaming here in the States about "security" and "control", ad nauseam ad infinitum.
At least you have the 1st Amendment to act as *some* sort of brake on that. We don't. Instead, we have the EU Human Rights legislation, which May et. al. want to pull us out of as fast as possible.
investigate/track/apprehend actual terrorists
You do not investigate people who are helping you to get elected. As they say in the Wild East "A Crow does not poke a fellow crow in the eye".
What we are seeing is every Al Lunatic around the Mediterranean rim trying to give her a helping hand to fix her sagging ratings and poll standings. Her promise to intervene in Syria and Lybia is their wet dream. What can be better than a half-arsed intervention by a nation that does not have the military and financial resources as well as the will to sustain a proper one. It is their dream come true there and then. And now, she is sliding in the polls... That cannot be allowed. She needs to be assisted to be elected.
If the secret services investigates the current attacks in depth the reasoning of the masterminds behind them will come out. So do not expect this to happen before the 8th. If ever.
If for no other reason. May's instinctive support for mass surveillance should make anyone think twice about voting for her at this election. (I put it that way, because the election leaflet I received from the Tories was all about her, with the occasional reference to "my candidate".)
Toast lands on buttered side = tighter control of the Internet.
Baby born with a caul = tighter control of the Internet.
Baby born in a perfectly normal birth with no complications = tighter control of the Internet.
Day ends with the letter 'y' = tighter control of the Internet.
Sigh.
I seem to recall similar backlash against Gutenberg.
Wow! Respect, oh venerable one!
I don't suppose your recollection goes back as far as the destruction of the library at Alexandria? Who was stirring public fear and hatred for education and learning back then, and did it look much like today?
I don't suppose your recollection goes back as far as the destruction of the library at Alexandria? Who was stirring public fear and hatred for education and learning back then, and did it look much like today?
That was the Christians, because part of the library was also used as a pagan temple.
Religion. Fucking humanity up for millennia, all in the name of someone's imaginary best friend.
"That was the Christians, because part of the library was also used as a pagan temple."
According to Wikipedia, "There is little consensus on when books in the actual library were destroyed....Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar's fire during his civil war in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in AD 270–275; the decree of Coptic Christian pope Theophilus of Alexandria in AD 391; and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in (or after) AD 642".
That was the Christians, because part of the library was also used as a pagan temple.
Unlikely - given that it actually happened multiple time - the first of which was by good old Julias Ceaser in 42BC
The next time it was Emperor Aurelian (270AD). He wasn't a Christian (he worshipped Sol Invictus)
It's possible that the next destruction (which was only a portion of the Library since it hadn't been rebuilt since 270AD) was because it was a pagan shrine. But it's unclear if the Serapeum (where parts of the Library had been stored after AD 270) actually had any documents from the Library by that point.
The final destruction was by the Moslems in AD 642 although it's also quite possible that a lot of the contents had already been moved to various other libraries.
So, if you are going to rant about your opposition to religion, the least you could do is get your facts correct. Otherwise you come across as someone just as bad as the religious fanatics.
Oh she's really going in for the kill with this isn't she.
Talk about using current events to push an agenda... I think that's pretty crass personally. There is no possible way any ISP can completely block anything that might look 'terrerist-y' - but I think we all already know that.
It's going to take more than a few strongly worded emails to stop those religious idiots from doing their thing. But May doesn't really care about that... she just wants control over UK internet traffic - or at least what she believes will be control.
How? Oh that's not her problem - those overpaid underlings in the IT department, they can do the actual work. And I want it done by teatime next Thursday... I have an election to win don't you know...
Some kook posts a mad conspiracy theory and it will be debunked and forgotten. We cannot allow that. Censor the internet! Delete everything! Put up a great wall! Make empty threats about hunting the kook down! Show how utterly terrified we are of a few words and people will be convinced there must be some truth behind them.
Unfortunately (and it seems a lot of the media are ignoring this point), she can't actually do anything at this time. No Parliament, so no new laws. Purdue rules prevent any changes to government policy so as not to unduly influence an incoming government that might be of a different party.
It's all grandstanding in an attempt to win votes, and realistically it is years too late.
May is hoping that regulation can be used to control social media and other websites, once she has more in place she can finally begin stripping out encryption and making it illegal to use encryption and then the security services finally have what they want in the ability to spy on anyone they please. However as we all know if you push the nutters too hard off the mainstream sites they have enough nous to set up their own networks, develop their own encryption tech and online meeting places, they might be nutters but they're not stupid. Not as ignorant as the politicians anyway.
You said it yourself:
"... and then the security services finally have what they want in the ability to spy on anyone they please. However as we all know if you push the nutters too hard off the mainstream sites they have enough nous to set up their own networks, develop their own encryption tech and online meeting places"
This is not about preventing terrorism (or nutters, to use your phrase).
This is about spying on whomever they please and suppressing political dissent.
People are feeling oppressed, disenfranchised, and seeing no hope in the future, making them willing to follow any senile, hate-filled old coot that promises them paradise if they kill themselves and take as many others as possible.
So her (And way too many other cowardly 'leaders') solution is more oppression, leading to more dis-enfranchisement, and making the future outlook even bleaker...
[Eye-roll measures 6.6 on the Richter scale]
She'll be wanting to outlaw Pen and Paper next, due to the harm it can do.
The Internet like a hammer doesn't itself break a window, Mrs May. For every £1 you spend on surveillance is £1 not spent on a child's Education/Health/Housing.
1950's looks with 1890's values, alive and well in 2017. She really doesn't 'get Britain' in 2017.
"For every £1 you spend on surveillance"
Warning: rant mode on.
This is absolutely true, but rather than diminish funding for surveillance of possible terrorism we could easily completely lose funding for Trident and build a great number of hospitals instead - or whatever other worthwhile project takes your fancy. The fact that we're spending uncountable billions on ICBMs when the threat is from criminals with knives in vans clearly demonstrates the pointlessness of this gross white elephant. It's like buying a 70" HDR TV and then announcing that you don't watch TV - but it's handy for your reputation with the envious neighbours. After all, the kids got new shoes the year before last...
But back to the topic. Apart from the vile crassness, already noted, of using the deaths of people to make a cheap political point in an attempt to be Thatcher Mk. II (spit) in the run-up to an election, May and cronies appear to not get that weakening encryption would risk the security of all of us for no benefit. Does she genuinely think that terrorists trust Whatsapp to exchange terrorist messages? No, I suspect she doesn't, since she must have advisors who actually understand this stuff, but she's counting on Middle England's fear and ignorance of technology to believe the spurious argument and do her job for her.
Roll on 1984 in the continuing long game...
They do.
They understand that it will give them the government of the day the ability to find out and monitor exactly what anyone is probably thinking, along with where they are and what they are doing 24/7/365.
This has very little to do with catching terrorists/pedophiles/drug dealers/money launderers/threat de-jour.
It's all about "Give me 6 lines from an honest man and I'll find something with which to hang him."
Never mind about "Give me 6 lines from an honest man and I'll find something with which to hang him, given the appallingly vague and all-encompassing wording of the various bits of anti-Terrorism Legislation, you don't need six lines any more. Just think what fun you can have with "possessing material likely to be of use to a terrorist" - an A-Z, a camera, a steak-knife, a piece of paper and a pencil(to write their plans)
""possessing material likely to be of use to a terrorist" - an A-Z, a camera"
Funny you should say that:
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2017/05/04/sussex-police-detain-bbc-cameraman-under-anti-terror-law-for-taking-photo-of-hove-town-hall/
' easily completely lose funding for Trident and build a great number of hospitals instead'
Depending on who you ask the lifetime cost of replacing Trident (including subs, running costs etc.) could be as much as £200B*, over a ~30 year life (based on the current submarines expected out of service date). The NHS currently costs ~£150B** a year, so by cancelling the Trident replacement you'd get about 2 week extra NHS budget a year. So probably not a great number of hospitals.
*From a Guardian article which I'm anticipating is worst case.
**From UKPublicSpending.co.uk, 2017 £138.9B, 2018 £146.4B.
The fact that we're spending uncountable billions on ICBMs when the threat is from criminals with knives in vans clearly demonstrates the pointlessness of this gross white elephant."
Firstly, SLBM's. We don't have, or plan to have any ICBM's.
Secondly, if the only threat to society is from criminals with knives in vans then not only would nuclear weapons be surplus to requirements, we wouldn't need conventional weapons either. An airforce would be surplus to requirements, along with a navy. We wouldn't need an organised army either, as if the only threat is a van and a knife we could probably get by with police armed response units.
Or maybe that army is worth having because in it's absence it would be possible to turn up with a few hundred armed and co-ordinated people and win a set piece battle with the police, rout them and then laugh at the UK's laws with impunity. A Navy and airforce for similar reasons, control of internal affairs and being able to defend the country from external forces if required.
And perhaps the nuclear weapons are worth having not because we'd want to use them, but because their very presence means that no country would ever dare back another country into a position where they might use them because nothing is worse the risk that somebody would push the nuclear button.
The (probably hideously under-estimated) MOD costs for Trident come in at about £1 billion a year over a 30-odd year lifetime... to counter a threat that may never happen...
...alternatively - it'd pay for 30+ thousand PCs, Nurses, etc... to hopefully prevent the acting out of a threat that exists right now, or deal with the aftermath should something slip through the net
I know what I'd rather spend my money on...
'...alternatively - it'd pay for 30+ thousand PCs, Nurses, etc... to hopefully prevent the acting out of a threat that exists right now, or deal with the aftermath should something slip through the net '
By that logic we should only ever spend money on the immediate threat, which in the long run is more expensive as you're constantly chasing your tail, getting rid of stuff you've only partly used to replace with something else.
And you're still ~460* times more likely to die in a road traffic accident than a terrorist attack in the UK so logically we should spend that £1B on speed bumps.**
*92 Terror related deaths since 2001 (not including the suicide bombers themselves) vs an average of 2514 road deaths a year 2001-2016. Average UK population for that time period ~62 million.
**I know speed bumps are rubbish at road safety I'm being facetious.
And you're still ~460* times more likely to die in a road traffic accident than a terrorist attack in the UK so logically we should spend that £1B on speed bumps.**
Or we could divert the money to self-driving autonomous co-operative vehicles and greatly reduce the chance of accidents.
Today's terrorism is exactly as widely predicted in, for example, the protests against Blair's invasion of Iraq. The mess we've made in Libya and Syria since then all adds to it.
But it may be as nothing to what we're storing up, with generations brought up in "Faith Schools" to think in terms of Us-and-Them as a way of life. Educational segregation worked so well in Northern Ireland, we'd better bring it to the mainland, and we can all hate each other with real conviction.
>But it may be as nothing to what we're storing up, with generations brought up in "Faith Schools" to think in terms of Us-and-Them as a way of life. Educational segregation worked so well in Northern Ireland, we'd better bring it to the mainland, and we can all hate each other with real conviction.
Is there any evidence to support Faith Schools, other than Faith itself? Shouldn't all education in the UK be 100% secular with no religious connection?
Shouldn't all education in the UK be 100% secular with no religious connection?
In an ideal world, maybe. But to try and enforce any such thing would be oppressive, and oppression is precisely what religion (and not least religious extremism) thrives on.
Twenty years ago, religion was basically harmless in the UK (except NI). The C of E, not having faced any real oppression or threat for centuries, had become toothless and more-or-less benign (as it still is, compared to most of the alternatives).
Then came Blair, who played with it (and of course with our constitution) like a small boy with his toys, and unleashed Us-and-Them. How long will it take to tame Blair's terror? Well, for a historical parallel, how long was it from the era of real Catholic threat - the Armada, the Gunpowder Plot - to the Northern Ireland peace agreement?
Twenty years ago, religion was basically harmless in the UK (except NI).
Really? Because I remember how heavily the Catholic v Protestant caused trouble and violence in lots of UK towns, and continues to do so today.
There is no place for preaching religion in places of education, places which deal in fact.
But it may be as nothing to what we're storing up, with generations brought up in "Faith Schools" to think in terms of Us-and-Them as a way of life. Educational segregation worked so well in Northern Ireland, we'd better bring it to the mainland, and we can all hate each other with real conviction.
Wasn't it just an excuse to spend less money on education and to "privatize" it because THE MARKET IS GOOD ?
"we can all hate each other with real conviction."
A community divided into small, poorly informed, poorly educated conflicting groups each with limited resources available to, is far easier to control (through social demonization) than an educated, resourced and unified public.
Thus the policy of gently boiling the British frog.
BH, because it's happening.
What we need is a strong and stable response.
Lets light candles,use words and have a concert because that will deter these people from committing acts of terrorism.
Rant time with naughty words and opinion, so look away now kids.
Shut the fucking border, if someone fucks off to Syria/Libya or wherever in the middle east that promotes terror then they made a choice and should not be allowed back. If you don't integrate and actively promote Islamist views (I fucking hate using that term because it's like "Zionist" and is an excuse for racism which I really fucking hate but there isn't any other term for it) then you get deported.
Get and the fuck out of the middle east, stop supplying arms to friendly Arabs.
Let everyone know you have now changed your view and that if anything else happens then you will go in hard and murder to death everyone.
Problem solved.
The other problem of us sleep walking into a totalitarian state can't be solved unless everyone votes lib-dem and even then I'm not sure it will work.
> Let everyone know you have now changed your view and that if anything
> else happens then you will go in hard and murder to death everyone.
>
> Problem solved.
Small problem with that. When you've already killed or murdered several thousand people overseas, there's going to be relatives left over more than happy to return the favour.
Announcing we've changed our view, expecting those people to change course is beyond taking the piss. Instead they'll kill more, likely triggering your "murder to death everyone", which will then create further people with a strong desire to return the treatment.
If you're looking for a way to heavily reduce the population of the planet though, your approach goes in that direction.
Radical viewpoints need radical actions. I don't condone doing it but saying you will is the best way to counter their beliefs.
It's not just about saying "we have changed our beliefs" it's about showing we have as well by pulling out completely and leaving America to fight on it's own and publicly slamming their actions at the same time.
Not being funny but I believe a lot of what is happening now is down to Trump and his policy with Israel.
"Rant time with naughty words and opinion, so look away now kids."
If you feel the need to emphasise your argument with obscenity then you obviously realise you have a weak argument. Specifically your weakness is that by and large you're dealing with British-born individuals and you can't go about banning your own nationals from re-entering your own country.
We're dealing with people who want the West to abandon its own laws and here you are wanting the West to abandon its own laws. The terrorists have won a little victory over you.
I'm not going to bother about the whole "bomb the middle east = create more terrorists" issue, that is a whole different can of worms.
problem 1 - the politicians either don't understand technology, or have a vested interest/ulterior motive in pushing their specific agenda.
problem 2 - the public that will vote for these politicians do not understand technology, they are pushed into being frightened of the terrorists/paedophiles/bogeyman of the week, and someone proposes an easy solution to the problem (people like easy solutions, and like to know that someone is "doing something")
A cynical person would find the timing of the latest attacks and the sudden flurry of arrests to be a touch suspicious - not that i'm a cynical person!
Terrorist attack at a concert kills 22 (less than 2 weeks before an unnecessary election), entire country says "screw you, we're not terrified, lets have a concert to raise money for the victims", PM looks weak and poll numbers slip, loads of arrests and police shown to be clamping down on the terrorists, controlled explosions in various places, some of the people arrested are released without charge
Day before concert, another terrorist attack kills 7, suddenly "enough is enough" says our PM (maybe she is trying to look tough) - and lets regulate and clamp down on the internet - we need people to have less encryption, less privacy, more monitoring (because that's worked so well in the past!), etc...
so, we get led up the garden path, and all online privacy is gone (does anyone expect that any future government of any party will attempt to get rid of the Investigatory Powers Act?), unless you know what you are doing, in which case you become a suspect (we don't know what that person is doing online, they must have something to hide!!!!! Investigate them!!!!)
now, where did I put that tinfoil, need to make myself a new hat................
(I really want to put three icons on this - damn you Register, stop limiting what I can do online!) :D
This is the same Theresa May who has announced that she will change the rules for new religious schools.
Currently they are limited to selecting only half their pupils by religious affiliation. She says she will allow them to select ALL their pupils by their religion.
A recipe for segregation of the young generation along religious fault lines.
The Catholic Church has apparently not created any new schools since the 50% rule came into being. They have welcomed her announcement by saying they will now open new schools.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/29/should-new-schools-be-able-to-select-children-by-faith
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/news/ces-news/item/1003609-catholic-church-welcomes-prime-minister-s-removal-of-the-cap-on-faith-admissions
A recipe for segregation of the young generation along religious fault lines.
Of course, divide and conquer - the oldest strategy in the book.
- I still think May is a Sea Devil, and this is their latest nefarious plan to get the human race to wipe itself off the earth so the Saurians can come back to the surface...
This is the same Theresa May who has announced that she will change the rules for new religious schools.
Currently they are limited to selecting only half their pupils by religious affiliation. She says she will allow them to select ALL their pupils by their religion.
A recipe for segregation of the young generation along religious fault lines.
And people are going to be shocked, shocked I tell you when extremist islamic schools appear in the USA funded by taxpayer dollars under the stupid "voucher" schemes.
Don't worry though, one or more neonazi "America First" idiots will attack a moderate islamic school and then that will scare off the muslims.
Republicans are all about "freedom of religion," as long as it's the freedom to be a gun-toting homophobic extremist "Christian"
Funny how Britain always becomes England isn't it
It's just looking forward to a post-Brexit world. When Scotland and Northern Ireland have gone their seperate ways and the Welsh and Cornish[1] are following them out the door.
Welcome to the United Kingdom[2] of England!
[1] Kernow bys vikken!
[2] Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland. And those dodgy Saxons over there on the East Coast that never really got their act together..
Let's put this in simple context.
If, by some odd happening, every single DNS server in the world suddenly up and left home to live on Mars - perhaps in quiet contemplation of the folly of humans - thus rendering the Internet completely non-existent... would terrorist attacks still take place?
The internet would still be fine, we'd just have to know the address of any site we wanted to visit, e.g. El Reg: 159.100.131.165 But yes, with no internet attacks would still take place.
Before the blood is even dry on the street May is claiming we need to ban encryption despite there being no evidence the attackers used any encrypted services. Never mind the fact that some of these people were already known to police and had been highlighted by people in the community and, ironically, due to a lack of resources the security services were unable to properly investigate and track them.
You ought to read the graphic novel. There are several threads of government corruption and depravity that got lost in the translation to the screen, good though the film is.
Of course, for the ultimate bleak experience, you need to read it in the original black and white, but the story was never finished in Warrior before it ceased publication. Damn Marvel and their obsession with protecting a name that was never theirs to begin with.
I never did get to read the end of Marvel/Miracleman. As I understand it, it was published in the US, and was available for import, but never published in the UK. Maybe I need to hit Ebay.
Edit. Soooo wrong. It was published. I'm just out of date! Some good reading ahead, I think.
Generally these people know each other. Often we see that they attended the same mosques. I wonder how much planning is done on the internet compared to how much is at a home and in person. Terrorists managed to plan and organise well before the internet and well before telephones. I dare say they'll just switch methods. What's next? Compulsory bugging of people / homes / cars / public spaces just in case a terrorist might be there planning something.
Why not go on the offensive? Why not have government funded anti terror websites all over the place? Why not try to counter what they do? Is it for fear of looking racist - despite Islam not being a race? If we are going to trap and stop access to extremist material we must know where it is. Why not put up a paywall style "rational wall" where we block access until they watch a 2 hour video by a liberal mosque?
I am sure that collectively we can come up with better ideas than sticking out heads in the sand.
Ok - disjointed rant over....
Tim, we in the Home Office Conservative party share your noble vision. Over the last parliament we increased CCTV and ANPR, but there's still so much more to do.
Vote Conservative on June 8th and I promise you we will bring in a new order of surveillance that will keep you safe, wherever you are and whatever you are doing for the rest of your life.
Signed
Teresa May.
That's great if you're still in a seat with a Lib Dem MP or one of the 63 (37 of which went to the Conservatives) where they were runners up.
If all the Conservative seats where the LD are runner up went Lib Dem (with no other changes) that would turn their 17 seat absolute majority into a -20 deficit. Is now the time to remind people that Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly, West Wales and valleys had EU aid > 1000 euros/person and the Tees Valley (around Middlesborough) had more than 250 Euros/person here
May talking out of her backside, yes, the internet has a bunch of nutters spewing out hate, but that has been going on for decades. Terrorist attacks is no excuse for attempting a "1984" and stomping on peoples rights to an internet uncensored and regulated by people who obviously have no clue on how technology works, if they did, how come every big GOV tech project is one expensive complete cockup after another ???
I'm afraid the evidence is that for data fetishists that is exactly what a terrorist incident is for.
These people don't see "1984" as a warning, they see it as a step to their Utopia (only a step, because people do still try to rebel, and in their fantasy no one can because it is no longer possible to express such an idea).
A question for our readers...
Let's assume you're a rather extreme minded nutter of even vaguely useable intelligence (of whatever persuasion) and you're planning a very bad thing. Is the best way to stay off the MI5 radar
a) fill your facebook account with loads of stuff showing similar people doing bad things and praising their badness, and then update your stalkerbook status to say "Just off to London to do a very bad thing at OS Grid reference xxx. Goodbye world. $deity is $adjective"
or b) put lots of videos of cute kittens on your facebook page
[I suspect that Mad May doesn't understand how bad people use the Internet]
Answers on a postcard to No 10 Downing Street or, after Friday, to "Dunravin", Port Stanley, Falkland Islands.
So you're saying it's the sick bastards posting kitten videos we should be looking out for?!
Of course in the venn diagram of people with 'vaguely usable intelligence' and 'willing to die in the name of Allah*' the area of cross over is very small. Certainly much smaller than that for 'vaguely usable intelligence' and 'willing to get someone else to die in the name of Allah*'.
*Other deities are available, this one just seems to be the cause de jour to die for if you just skim religious education.
May: we need to review Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need.
I think you'll find they have all the powers they need already, and then some, but maybe they need some more resources to make use of the existing powers? Like following up on strong tip-offs from family and mosque? Instead of having a whole new barn-full of data to trawl through for micro-needles?
"...maybe they need some more resources to make use of the existing powers?"
How *many* more resources? How many police officers does it take to mount round the clock surveillance on a single suspect? Do we need uniformed policemen? Detectives? Secret Policemen? Infiltrators?
And when the bad guys catch on, and start giving duff warnings to increase the pressure on the police, won't the situation break down again?
"How many police officers does it take to mount round the clock surveillance on a single suspect?"
The question has been asked several times - and the answer was over 20.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11251792/Only-a-fraction-of-terror-suspects-can-be-watched-247.html
Really PM TM what are you going to do?
Are you going to stop the flood of immigration, (excluding Women & Families) And only allow men who can actively prove their identity will be allowed through and stopping those who do not share our values at all, and are not running from a war zone, and expect them to enter the nation as we would expect anyone else to?
Are we going to give the police authority to deport anyone they suspect of activity planning terrorists attacks, (because I dont know about some of you, but I really am getting fed up with hearing the phrase, 'suspect was known to police')?
Are you going to put the ring leaders already in prison into solitary confinement, to prevent them from radicalizing other prisoners, and attempt to break up the number of radicals groups already in there?
PM TM: er.. No!
Then what are you going to do?
PM TM: we're going to monitor the internet in case someones feefee's get hurt!
And I wonder why people are actively considering voting for a communist?!
"Are we going to give the police authority to deport anyone they suspect of activity planning terrorists attacks"
Please explain how this could work bearing in mind that these are generally UK-born. To where do they deport them? And then if the police had these powers absolutely, which is what you seem to suggest, and they decided they suspected you then wouldn't you want to be able to argue your innocence somewhere, such as before a court?
Why, when we're faced with a movement determined to overthrow the rule of law which we've built up over centuries do we seem to have all these blethering, hard of thinking numpties who think that the best way to combat it is to throw away the rule of law which we've built up over the centuries?
'Enough is enough' is about as helpful as 'Brexit means brexit'.
She was home secretary, she had the tools (which don't have to include deporting people born here), she and her colleagues somehow managed to not use the exisiting tools and and processes.
For example she had "control orders" or their logical successor by a different name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_order
"List of restrictions
Possession and/or use of specified objects and substances.
Use of specified services and/or facilities.
Certain occupations and employment.
Carrying out specified activities.
Restriction on association and communications with specified people, or people in general.
Restriction of place of residence, and visitors to the residence.
Movements at certain times of the day, or to certain places.
Passport must be surrendered.
A requirement to admit specified persons to certain premises.
A requirement to allow specified persons to confiscate and/or scientifically examine any object on premises owned by the subject.
A requirement to allow electronic surveillance to be carried out and photographs taken.
Any other restrictions whatsoever for up to 24hrs, when it is deemed necessary.
"
Why weren't they used more widely when you could have done so, Mrs May?
What new powers does Mrs May want, and why will they achieve more than similar already-existing powers that have largely been ignored? It's not the Interweb that's the problem here, Mrs May.
On a related note: who's been making recent decisions on the terrorist threat level, and were the appropriate decisions made?
"The decision to increase the threat level was taken by JTAC, which analyses and assesses all intelligence relating to international terrorism in Britain and overseas. It brings together counter-terrorism experts from the police, security services and Whitehall departments. They include Charles Farr, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, and Mark Sedwill, national security adviser, who both worked very closely with May at the Home Office."
Oh look: "worked closely with May at the Home Office". But what did they achieve?
"But what did they achieve?"
Well Mr Farr is generally credited as having been the driving force behind the push to control the internet (well, society generally really) for a number of years now. Quite a few of his ideas are in the Conservative manifesto, i.e. official Tory policy, this time around, which I guess he would count as an achievement.
No, No, quite right Doctor Syntax
We should just leave them alone to carry on regardless, whats a few more dead little girls?
Yeah the rule of law has always been exactly the same and has never changed for any reason.
Its obvious that at the moment things arent working, so a change is not only needed but right to do so.
And it doesnt matter if these people are UK born, its obvious they dont identify as being British nor believe in British ideals, they are supporters of ISIS - an enemy we are at war with so reintroducing Defence Regulation 18B wouldnt be a bad idea. (oh look a law that came into being as soon as a need was recognised and removed when it was no longer needed, not set in stone as you appear to think it is)
Its great how you virtue signalling cucks are always first in line to defend the law when its suits you but never have the balls to suggest to do what is needed when its needed.
So carry on with your little hashtags and shutting down of anyone attempting to speak up and I'll watch as the growing anger and resentment turn into hate, then watch your snowflake hypocritical responses when some lunatic does something drastic.
But maybe I'm being to harsh, maybe hashtags can change the world.
#PrayForParis 07/01/2015
#PrayForParis 13/11/2015
#PrayForSanBernardino 02/12/2015
#PrayForBrussels 22/03/2016
#PrayForOrlando 12/06/2016
#PrayForNice 14/07/2016
#PrayForWurzburg 18/07/2016
#PrayForMunich 22/07/2016
#PrayForAnsbach 24/07/2016
#PrayForReutlingen 24/07/2016
#PrayForFrance 26/07/2016
#PrayForOhio 28/11/2016
#PrayForBerlin 19/12/2016
#PrayForIstanbul 01/01/2017
#PrayForLondon 22/03/2017
#PrayForStPetersburg 03/03/2017
#PrayForStockholm 07/04/2017
#PrayForDortmund 11/03/2017
#PrayForParis 20/04/2017
#PrayForManchester 22/05/2017
#PrayForLondon 03/06/2017
...................is a control freak who wants to control everything. Who'd have guessed?
20,000 Police off our streets since 2010 and a Capital Gains Tax cut in the offing for the chosen few.
5th richest country in the world. We can afford decent public services.. We just need to choose to and not believe the lies from vested interests. Thursday would be a good day to do that.
I'd suggest we start with PPE graduates.
Looking up the heads of MI5 and 6 and various other pushers of the data fetishists "security" agenda I note a surprising number with this degree.
Perhaps time to take a look at the lecturers and wheather their teachings should be viewed as "hate speech," against any kind of civil liberties.
2 days till the British elections. UK readers have an opportunity. Make a difference. Vote for someone.
Ok, it's not likely - but at least make it difficult to use in Britain (while most of the rest of the world laugh at us).
She's just being purposefully blind on the fact that most of these attacks are either disaffected loners or small groups of individuals who have gotten together and bounced their dark paranoid fears and gripes around their small group until they feel they have to make a stand.
I don't believe the internet plays much of a part except by being a part of everyday life as much as the phone and TV.
There is another agenda she's pushing with this.
There is an agenda.
But it's no more hers than the last 8-9 previous sock puppet Home Secretaries who spouted the "We need more surveillance" line.
It's funny how much s**t in the UK (desire for more spying powers, retention of DNA of anybody arrested, ANPR, inability to control immigration leading to the rise of UKIP) originates at the Home Office.
"how much s**t in the UK (desire for more spying powers, retention of DNA of anybody arrested, ANPR, inability to control immigration leading to the rise of UKIP) originates at the Home Office."
Setting aside the detail that it was *unwillingness* (not inability) to control non-EU immigration ... who was it that made a big fuss about sorting immigration? Ms Weak and Wobbly, Ms Weekly U-turn, no?
Anyway, that said, the real point is that it's clear that people like Charles Farr have been pulling the policy strings on topics like those you mention, and have been doing so for many years ("Since 2003, he has held a number of senior posts across Whitehall concerned with security and counter terrorism"), but who's pulling his strings?
How do us voters get rid of people like him in an alleged democracy?
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/charles-farr
"Charles Farr was appointed as Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Professional Head of Intelligence Analysis at Cabinet Office in December 2015.
Charles was the Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) at the Home Office from June 2007 until December 2015. He was responsible for the cross-government UK counter terrorist strategy, CONTEST and cross-government work on organised crime.
Charles joined the Diplomatic Service in 1985 and has served at British Embassies in South Africa and Jordan. He was awarded an OBE in the Queen’s 2002 New Years Honours list for his service overseas for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a CMG in 2009. Since 2003, he has held a number of senior posts across Whitehall concerned with security and counter terrorism.
[snip]"
And at https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/les-levidow/uk-counter-extremism-agenda-safeguarding-as-routine-punishment-and-co
"A decade ago the Prevent programme was established within the wider Contest programme to protect national security. This aims to ‘reduce the threat to the UK from terrorism by stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism’. It has sought to counter the ideology of ‘violent extremism’ and the grievances which make it attractive (Cabinet Office, 2008). In effect, this targets those who might be seen as promoting such grievances, i.e. any political dissent seen as threatening the state.
In 2009 this rationale was further explained by the Home Office chief of Counter-Terrorism, Charles Farr: namely, the government has targeted a large group of non-violent people who ‘create an environment in which terrorists can operate’. This criterion was later incorporated into the Prevent strategy and statutory duty"
There's loads more about Mr Farr and his antics (personal and professional) in the Daily Mail, of all places (reliable or not), and a few other places too e.g. Ars Technica. You know what to look for.
Parking the absolute stupidity of Mays ambition maybe she should spend more time examining the motivation of the people that commit these atrocities
Back in the days of the IRA we knew what their aim was, a re-united Ireland. They were able, initially, to get a toehold in the then massively discriminated against Catholic population. Their method, wage a guerilla war against the 'occupiers' and 'oppressors' until the public and the gov't had had enough and gave them what they wanted. As a purely military campaign it failed as the vast majority of similar situations do. The two sides grind each other down to a stalemate, the original minority community also becomes sick and tired of the violence and talks follow.
What the hell do these guys want? Revenge, Sharia laws, Caliphates
We are constantly told 'Islamic fundamentalists' hate us and our values, which is a very convenient simple mantra. We are also told they have been 'radicalised', a phrase which easily transmutes into made more religious but in a bad way. I prefer the term brainwashed.
The brainwashers are a bunch of older men pushing an extreme version of a religion and they cannot tolerate any serious criticism. Because like Galileos Catholic church once one chink in the 'truth' is disproved the whole edifice may come crashing down. What these guys want is power and their version of truth slavishly adopted by everyone on pain of death.
Sadly like most true believers, these guys are so blinded by 'faith' they cannot be argued with or dissuaded. The best we can hope for is they die off soon taking their poison with them. Meanwhile we do all we can to counter thier propaganda.
In my book anyone who sees other groups of human beings as less than human and calls for their destruction is a fascist. just like Hitler, Pol Pot and countless others with ideologies throughout history. So let's stop calling them religious fundamentalists they are no more religious fundamentalists than an IRA bomber who took communion.
"they are no more religious fundamentalists than an IRA bomber who took communion"
That may or may not be true, but they are using their religion as the motivating factor to commit these acts, whereas the IRA bomber was using a nationalistic fervour to convince himself that murdering people was for a greater good. Get rid of religion and patriotism and we'd be a fair way towards stopping attacks on civilians. But we keep calling out their religion as it is a key driver to their acts and also calls out the local religious community to be on the lookout for anyone else who might go down a violent path. Even if we ultimately ignore them as we seem to have done in both Manchester and London with tragic consequences.
What we need to do is to stop using the words Extremist and Moderate. Stop with the rhetoric that implies that some people are "Extremely Muslim" while others are only "Moderately Muslim" - I propose replacing the words with Shitty and Okay. We need to fight Shittiness online while protecting the Okay members of our society.
Meh.... you are chaotic.
Your PoV was espoused decades ago.
You provide no solutions to any problems, because your:- "Treat others like humans" mentality would fail when I rent out your kitchen to 50 immigrants because they are hungry, and I fancy some money to live on.
You do not describe what "treat others like humans" ACTUALLY MEANS? (to You or anyone else).
We all interpret life Differently. You go your way, others go their way.
And those of us who do not want the current brand of UK government (a VERY CORRUPT ESTABLISHMENT) are blind to your own sins.
What you seem to be saying is..... "Those of you who wreck your own country, can move to someone else`s country and wreck it if its in a legal way that you can get away with even it its illegal, just like the way the BBC cuts out of an interview of a witness about what 3 muslims were shouting (ALLAH) while stabbing a young woman to death in a country where the police delete CCTV if it proves you innocent".
P.S.
Hitler wanted Europe cleaned up. And he was a war hero (who was gassed by the British). Do you object to either of those facts? Now you can get back to supporting Israel stealing Palestine etc.
Coming soon: Some people have been known to communicate in secret by whispering - in future whispering is to be outlawed. All talking is to be in a loud shouty voice.
If these religious nutcases are motivated to commit acts of terrorism, you should take the fight to where they are weakest - religion. So take the dead terrorist have the Satanic verses tattooed on their corpse and bury them upside down facing away from Mecca with a dead pig stuck on top of them. My guess is you wont see them queuing up to commit suicide after that.
I am not sure who I dislike most, May or all the other parties. I had real hopes that the other parties would step up and offer a real alternative to the tories (to be honest I accepted labour would remain a dead duck) and yet May seems to be trying to lose an election and there is nobody to oppose.
This interesting example of how the news is constructed to meet the narrative, showing how content is/was constructed after the London Bridge attacks.
It's difficult to ignore/explain this one.
You genuinely need to use due diligence when viewing any "constructed news content" as this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ObbTX_nMGk
No one should ever be 'directed' for news content, in order to fill the frame/produce the popcorn sound bite. This example needs to be investigated by the Press complaints commission.
It's a shame Jonathan Pie wasn't there too. This is perfect and timely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50nd1_DPKTI
PM May says we must control extremism on the internet. Good. But who define extremism? A group of democratic countries? Is extremism the thousands of preachers hitting hard on the topic of antichrist identifying some political leaders (think Obama) or nature groups or religious teachers or churches as antichrist? Are there books that should be banned or its distributors jailed? Think PM May what you are saying before you rush us into something that you will later regret. Control of the internet is a silly solution. It is true where your right ends my right starts. But remember, for those who don't read, history repeats itself. Rush back and see our European history: filled with controls here and there. Look at women controlled as though they are less than men, minorities without voice, etc. In the emotion of the moment we can be misguided like that guy who said we will rule for a thousand years.
The real issue here is the way that Google, Facebook and the like show you the news that they think you want to see, this needs to be banned outright. We are all being manipulated by the advertising strategy of giving the customer what they want ... search for "cat proof sofa" and it pops up everywhere in the news feed and stories.
This is harmless but when you start talking a walk on the less stable side of life, the Internet reinforces these things and that's what we have to stop. It's like going into the toilet with a newspaper to read while you have a crap, and just because Facebook knows you are heterosexual, single, under 30 and a five figure income, you like animals but don't have a pet, you own a house, a new car and an Uber account, the news becomes all about sexy single women, living close to you with with a pet cat named Robert who likes to ride in a car.
The same algorithm will happily serve up extremist views and stories of other madmen - we need to say NO to manipulation by the Internet. The Internet is not the problem - it's the companies that manipulate us that are being evil while they try to sell us soap.
@Version 1.0: "The real issue here is the way that Google, Facebook and the like show you the news that they think you want to see"
As distinct from Time Warner, News Corp etc. The problem for our corporate overlords is that since the rise of alternative sources of news on the Internet, their particular message is becoming ineffectual. The war on terror being used as a pretext to shut it down.
One could import a few hundred thousand "consultants" from Qatar/Saudiland & al. and impose Sharia law, that would fix things outright. Internet clampdown would come with this as a bonus. May 100% happy.
In the meantime, most people just keep stiff upper lips, NYT bullshit notwithstanding:
https://twitter.com/A_V_M_L/status/871273339725238272/photo/1
The icon says it all. Do they not realise they're being trolled into curtailing our freedoms and civil liberties? Either this is just another excuse to tighten the elite's stranglehold on power or they're all (as Labour did exactly the same thing - remember Whacky Jacqui and Andy Burnham?) thick as two short planks. Hanlon's razor suggests I should take the latter view.
It can be summarised thus: "A group of radicals want to oppress the people with their anti-freedom views so we'll get in and do it first."
"Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet – and the big companies that provide internet-based services – provide. We need to work with allied, democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism and terrorist planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online."
So Mrs Prime Minister how do you implement it?
May owes her right to vote to the actions of extremists. Under her mindset the Suffragettes would have been locked up. Gay men like Turing would still be imprisoned. Countless positive social changes have resulted from the actions of people who were initially classed as undesirable extremists. Nobody can argue in favour of "Islamist" terror, but how the hell is any of this going to restrict just them?
I wonder if there could be a framework where intrusive surveillance was enabled but that the target matter had to be legally constrained. Ie nobody cares about what you did on the internet unless it involves giving one to the great Satan.
"Under her mindset the Suffragettes would have been locked up."
The confrontational Suffragettes were locked up. The non-confrontational Suffragists were not.
Women eventually were given the vote after proving that they could do a man's job in WW1.
In all cases of equal rights in the UK for nearly 200 years - it has been the major Churches that imposed their opposition to changes through their dogma, the pulpit, MPs, the House of Lords, and The Establishment.
Some non-conformist groups - especially the Quakers - were the leading supporters of human rights.
https://radicalmanchester.wordpress.com/category/suffragettes-suffragists/
Colour me pink, but TM has avoided directly mentioning encryption backdoors in her last 3 speeches. Could the security community, the experts, be breaking through the curtain of "advice" that has misinformed her until recently?
Breaking encryption makes us LESS secure. Period. They already have backdoors to end devices, making targeted surveillance easy, so the encryption is irrelevant. Maybe its the mass surveillance power they yearn for? And there's the problem.
Legislating large PII data sets held by commercial organisations like Facebook may be the only way to curb the utter disregard of responsibility for the power they provide.
If the security services don't pick up on an obviously extreme nutjob when not one but two of his acquaintances dob him in, how will trawling everybodies' WhatsApp message stream be the remotest bit effective?
Simple. The policy isn't for surveillance of possible terrorists, it's for other reasons.
Look at the loooong list of State authorities allowed to dip their pinky in the data flow!
Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
The Food Standards Agency? WTF? See, it's not just "terrorism". It's general crime investigation, benefit fraud investigation, just ordinary Police work. 'Cos old-fashioned Police work is so '90's daahling. Plus it's expensive.
Actually finding and stopping radical Islam is hard, so I guess we need to regulate platforms of speech. And that has a couple other valuable knock-on effects for the ruling class:
1) Once you are done building your seek-and-destroy program for Islamic extremism, you can repurpose to go after whistleblowers, reformers and other people with ideas that might change the status quo.
2) The companies we are bashing are all HQ'd outside of the UK, so they are less worthy of legal protection than the ones whose officers fund Britain's major parties and hob-nob with the elite.
3) It helps Britain believe that victory can be reached at home, without any politically and monetarily expensive efforts to protect and stabilize jihadi sanctuaries overseas.
So the plan is
1 don't be violent.
2 regulate the internet, thus removing access to knives and cars.
3 be violent, in a way guaranteed to cause more terrorism.
4 regulate the internet, and allow whatever remaining police there are to do anything to anyone.
(5 Magic anti-terrorism tree that appears when May incraases surveillance of the innocent)
No mention of increasing police staffing levels to somewhere reasonable, for instance to the level where someone being reported as suspicious 5 times leads to an investigation.
Terrorists are not fighting a war that they can win.
ISIS are never going to be in control of the UK.
However, if we change our behaviour, policies, laws as a disproportionate reaction to a perceived threat, they can change our society and our way of life.
Besides which, it was a van they used to run people down not an internet connection. We should be calling on van hire firms to do more (obviously we shouldn't, that is just preposterous, almost as preposterous as...).
Regulating the InterNet companies will NOT stop the malcontents, just as the UK can't stop ANYONE from making explosives. Long gone are the days when all you had to do was to keep an eye out for large sales of with high content of ammonium nitrate (domestic fertilizer is salted with urea and ammonium sulfate which neutralise ammonium nitrate).
No, today, right in MAY'S bailiwick, all the ingredients for TATP, PETN or HMTD (check Wikipedia) are readily available from your local supermarket or chemist / pharmacy / drugstore. And then there are Swan Vesta matches and plumbing fittings.
I live in a country where we can't even buy matches or even party sparklers yet every so often my employer hires a 'local' when we need to test some prototype military equipment - all materials bought from the supermarkets. How can MAY block the sales of peroxide-based items (think Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield [eyes up]) or acetone (nail polish remover). (BTW acetone PLUS rubbing alcohol makes a great solder resin cleaner and real cheap, too)?
The fact is MAY, et al, are toothless when it comes to the malcontents but interfering with the InterNet is great 'Security Theatre' with high public visibility.
(P.S. Nothing above will help any aspiring malcontent - all you need Wikipedia!)(Much of my explosives knowledge was taught me when I was in the British Army)
One can only be grateful that the IRA did not have access to the internet. With it they may have conducted a bombing campaign on the UK mainland and could even have succeeded in blowing up, killing and injuring half the cabinet and the PM.
I can only assume you're alluding to Brighton 1984, but the PM wasn't injured and no cabinet members killed.
London is tragically attacked by losers, and the President of the United States attacks the mayor again and again and again. Make America Great Again by disrespecting our allies. Oi, cowardly terrorists: Back off. Our government leaders are quite capable of ruining our countries. They don't need your help.
London is tragically attacked by losers, and the President of the United States attacks the mayor again and again and again. Make America Great Again by disrespecting our allies
That's part of the problem - Trump calling the terrorists "losers" instead of calling them "evil, twisted subhuman degenerates." By calling them "losers" he's putting them on the same level as his political opponents and the media. But then again, he's not known for a big vocabulary or adult thinking.
"But then again, he's not known for a big vocabulary or adult thinking."
Which brings up the subject of Alzheimer's. Be afraid, be very afraid.
It worked for Nancy's presidency, but she wasn't born behind the former Iron Curtain ... and she wasn't an airhead, either.
"...we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed."
...Said every fascist dictator ever.* Are you sure you want to be seen in their company?
"But as the nature of the threat we face becomes more complex, more fragmented, more hidden, especially online..."
So you feel that stopping them using the Internet will drive them into the open, instead of further underground?
* I think... I may have technically Godwinned this thread. Apologies.
I think... I may have technically Godwinned this thread. Apologies.
No. For several reasons.
Most fundamentally, Godwin is invoked by derogatory remarks directed at someone you are arguing with. Your reference is directed at someone or something outside the thread.
If what you're attacking is itself a strawman or misrepresentation[1], then it becomes a non-sequiter, and makes a negative contribution to debate. But that's not the same as Godwin's law.
[1] I don't think it is that, but I'm not going to check so I can say for certain.
Theresa May: "We need to work with allied, democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism and terrorist planning"
You should ask your American friends to stop destabilizing the Arabic middle east. That's the main source of British born Muslims being radicilized. The influx of migrant/refugees from these areas being a ready pool for the next generation of extremists to be drawn from.
... to have this stuff out where there is a chance to see it? Even if through some remote chance all this sort of material was removed, it still won't get rid of the ideology. It will just make these people harder to find. The message will still make the rounds and as long as foreign bombs fall on their countries, recruiting will be easy.
I have some sympathy for people who get very, very, upset when some distant Foreigners stick their noses into what are essentially civil wars and then proceed to bomb their countries to oblivion.
Saddam and Ghaddafi weren't very nice to their citizens but at least the problems were contained within their countries.
Why aren't the same meddling Foreigners bombing the DPRK (North Korea)? Not that I wish this to happen given that I visit that country for a month, four times each year. Many Americans are also working in the DPRK - all of us strictly apolitical. That's why we can travel in and out without fear of arrest.
But MAY has especial responsibility for these problems - she was Home Secretary for SIX years and she still doesn't know too much about communications. The GCHQ undoubtedly spoon fed their side of the story to her and yet she is still technically dumb - just like many politicians.
Stick a back-door on an App and she still won't read the contents if they are encrypted, say with PGP.
If the DPRK is such a closed society, how come we 'Foreign Guest Workers' can send communications out with little hassle (we do have international cell access)? It's because they, as with May, don't have the wherewithal to really make it hard work for techies. Ditto for China.
The only people who are suffering and the law-abiding citizens of the UK who have been stripped of their privacy and so many rights - including human rights.
1. Censorship
2. Banned speech
3. No private communications
4. ……
For dictators, employing the concept of "everything that isn't mandatory is forbidden" makes controlling the peasants an easy task. Take away everyone's personal phone and monitor all business phones sounds like something that you would have seen in the former Soviet Union. Mail might be allowed, but you will have to submit your letter and envelope to a censor at the post office who will decide if it can be sent or will be immediately shredded and the door to the booth you are in stays locked until the security force comes to get you. You can still send letter, but probably won't take the risk.
How could the internet be banned or controlled? Every time they try a new workaround comes out the next day. Why not concentrate on the segment of the population that has the propensity to strap on explosives and head for an area with lots of people? Oh, but that's racist or "profiling".
Chimps probably don`t realise there were terrorists when there was no internet.
Chimps probably don`t realise there are terrorists where there is no internet.
And the baboons probably dont realise that terrorists will use a different method of communication when they have now been told by the unbelievably dumb PM that the Internet will be strictly governed by corrupt goons in the UK Government.
Go figure out how the UK plans to help imprison every person on Earth.
I have a friend who's a law professor- she's written the text book on Jurisprudence and the Internet.
What it shows is that TM hasn't a clue what she's talking about and neither does any other politician. Governments want to control that which they cannot and they love to scapegoat that which they cannot control and blame it for all of the problems they can't solve. Look at China's response to Facebook. ie, ban it. I personally agree that Fbook is an evil blight on world society but no one is forcing me to subscribe :-)
It's hugely debatable that controls over the internet would do the slightest good and the most likely outcome would be just to pointlessly limit people freedoms.It would be very difficult and probably impossible to obtain effective international agreements to control and censor the internet globally. Most users would be resistant anyway. For example if encryption is banned ( and you can't put that genie back in the bottle) how would anyone prosecute me if I'm using an encrypted service or a VPN? - that's why I signed up in the first place. Providers would simply move elsewhere in Cyberspace rather than be forced to track their clients IP's and there would ensue a permanent game of cat and mouse between governments and service providers. Just look at the international attempts to close The Pirate Bay. It's still there - right now. The British government may have forced my ISP to prevent me directly accessing the site but that's not a problem with my VPN connection and I get the added plus of not having my traffic throttled. Scores Pirate Bay 1, me 1. VPN 1 Government and stupid DRM industry 0
The best way to fight terrorism and intolerance is through liberal laws and ideals.The terrorist agenda is to try to force governments to adopt totalitarian and draconian measures against its own populace in order to undermine the weaken the state and undermine the fabric of society.
It was Benjamin Franklin who said that he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
So why don't we thumb our noses at the terrorists and the government stupidity and carry on!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
