It's really quite amazing, and speaks volumes for a succession of technophobic Governments.
During the recent Wanna Cry attack, Theresa May spoke on Radio 4 about the virus attacking a "WINDOW computer".
Our privacy has already been compromised, all under the veil of fighting extremism. Theresa May claims that the internet creates a safe haven for terrorists. It would all add up perfectly if terrorism only entered these shores following the advent of the internet. In the 70's, 80's and 90's the IRA were able to conduct numerous attacks with little more than a phone box and a few coded messages.
Does regulating the internet prevent 2 or 3 or 8 or 17 people discussing how to attack people in a city?
One of the main reasons why I don't want a huge Tory majority is that it would allow May the freedom to harvest our information for all sorts of purposes, with little opposition because people always believe that a Government acts in a way that protects the innocent.
Try telling that to a number of people who lost their disability benefits over their prolonged usage of Facebook. Or, try telling that to people suspected of crimes whose internet viewing history somehow makes the press.
People will say, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Imagine, it is March 9th 1973, and 200 people have been injured by a bomb planted by the IRA outside the Old Bailey. The PM, Theresa May, says enough is enough. From now on, we are tapping into all phone calls. The Royal Mail will be opening every envelope and reading it's contents and these contents will be made available to the DSS, DWP, NHS, Ambulance Services and the like. The police will also be taking your diaries, and any other written materials from you house for further examination.
Do people really think that such actions would have prevented a bomb killing 5 British Soldiers two months later? Or would the Intelligence Services have had more information on the Brighton Bombing a decade later?
This is a thinly veiled attempt to monitor citizens. Before too long, internet browsing data will be used in Courts to ascertain a person's character. A person accused of sexual crimes could well have a browsing history that shows they enjoy watching pornography. That will make the news, whether local or national, and public perception will be conditioned to pass judgment on cases where not all details are as well published. Because only perverts watch porn, right? And only junkies buy drugs, and only terrorists read stories of terrorism, and only the workshy would spend hours on Facebook at the cost to the taxpayer.
It is a dangerous ground, it brings into complete possibility that a person somewhere in this country will be judged purely on internet browsing habits. I doubt that it will improve intelligence gathering, it hasn't so far has it? So why does May now think we need more of it? It's because she hasn't a clue what the internet is, she has a number of misconceptions, and she has an agenda.
It's really interesting that, whilst details are still scarce, she has used this tragedy to attack the internet providers. In the immediate aftermath of this attack, within 12 hours of the attack, her focus is on the internet. Why?
This article is about not just about pornography
http://www.newstatesman.com/science-...rn-prohibition
From the same source
http://www.newstatesman.com/science-...ry-powers-bill
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by JDerrida
Posting Permissions
