Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated

Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7771896.html

We need a national ID card scheme for everyone aged 16 and above. That card would have to be produced when demanded by a police officer or other state security agent. Failure to do so would result in a maximum £10,000 fine and/or mandatory two years clink. Citizens, their homes and business premises should be searched at the discretion of any authorised agent without the need for a warrant.

Fill the skies with surveillance drones. Issue an Internet Licence. No-one without one will be able to legally access the web. Anyone who visits an unapproved site shall have that licence withdrawn for life and be summarily taken to a cell at their nearest police station to receive a jolly good kicking.

Spot on. If only the Department of Work and Pensions had access to all my emails, none of this terrorism would be happening.

Sounds just like something from House of Cards. The Netflix version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

Spot on. If only the Department of Work and Pensions had access to all my emails, none of this terrorism would be happening.

---

No, but perhaps if they had access to Salman Abedi's e mails there wouldn't be 22 people dead in Manchester now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

No, but perhaps if they had access to Salman Abedi's e mails there wouldn't be 22 people dead in Manchester now.

---

Terrorism predates the internet.

In fact, you would have to be pretty stupid to use the internet to plan anything untoward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

No, but perhaps if they had access to Salman Abedi's e mails there wouldn't be 22 people dead in Manchester now.

---

Yes and perhaps if we all had a policeman in our homes listening to our conversations then the same would be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

No, but perhaps if they had access to Salman Abedi's e mails there wouldn't be 22 people dead in Manchester now.

---

They did have access to his emails. Also to yours, mine and everyone else's. We have Edward Snowden to thank for letting us know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora

We should all be immensely proud that our government invests so much of its time and our money watching everything we do for our safety and protection. Those who complain about the trifling issue of consent are trouble-making nut jobs who ought to spend more time watching great reality TV shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

No, but perhaps if they had access to Salman Abedi's e mails there wouldn't be 22 people dead in Manchester now.

---

He was already on a watch list so I doubt it would have made a difference.

Id rather not give up my civil liberties thanks. That's the one thing terrorist attacks achieve is people allowing the government to rule by fear.

Who said May didn't have any policies besides Brexit. This seems like a pretty big one, the global suppression of free speach!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Who said May didn't have any policies besides Brexit. This seems like a pretty big one, the global suppression of free speach!

---

We should impeech!

"When you give up liberty for security, you end up with neither"
Benjamin Franklin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Who said May didn't have any policies besides Brexit. This seems like a pretty big one, the global suppression of free speach!

---

It is big. It's bigger than banning chris!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

We need a national ID card scheme for everyone aged 16 and above. That card would have to be produced when demanded by a police officer or other state security agent. Failure to do so would result in a maximum £10,000 fine and/or mandatory two years clink. Citizens, their homes and business premises should be searched at the discretion of any authorised agent without the need for a warrant.

Fill the skies with surveillance drones. Issue an Internet Licence. No-one without one will be able to legally access the web. Anyone who visits an unapproved site shall have that licence withdrawn for life and be summarily taken to a cell at their nearest police station to receive a jolly good kicking.

---

What's your answer to tackling terrorism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

She is talking bollox on this one.

Whatsapp encrypted end to end. Programs like truecrypt etc than encrypt a hard drive that would take months if at all to crack. The cyber caliphate is alive and well - and it's only thanks to groups like Anonymous that sites get tracked and taken down. Add on top of that people like that kid in Cardiff with his usb cuff links encrypted with various how to videos etc. There is no clear or easy to 'regulate' the internet.

Proxies, VPNs, the TOR network - she may as well not bother - even if she forces all ISP's to monitor traffic - that would still have little effect.

---

It almost as if they're using fear as an excuse to lessen innocent people's civil liberties. They wouldn't do that, would they? Just lie to us like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

She is talking bollox on this one.

Whatsapp encrypted end to end. Programs like truecrypt etc than encrypt a hard drive that would take months if at all to crack. The cyber caliphate is alive and well - and it's only thanks to groups like Anonymous that sites get tracked and taken down. Add on top of that people like that kid in Cardiff with his usb cuff links encrypted with various how to videos etc. There is no clear or easy to 'regulate' the internet.

Proxies, VPNs, the TOR network - she may as well not bother - even if she forces all ISP's to monitor traffic - that would still have little effect.

---

Agreed, but there are plenty of people who don't understand the internet and would go along with this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Treseder

What's your answer to tackling terrorism?

---

I'd go for the source. Cut off its head if you will. That means May returning to Saudi Arabia to tell them they must stop funding and arming ISIS & co, or else. What do you think of that idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

I'd go for the source. Cut off its head if you will. That means May returning to Saudi Arabia to tell them they must stop funding and arming ISIS & co, or else. What do you think of that idea?

---

Or else what? She'll stop selling them weapons of mass destruction?

I don't disagree with that, but it won't stop a few groups of fanatics or brainwashed loners using knives and vehicles or even home-made bombs to kill and maim in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

I'd go for the source. Cut off its head if you will. That means May returning to Saudi Arabia to tell them they must stop funding and arming ISIS & co, or else. What do you think of that idea?

---

Depends what (the or else) implies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

It almost as if they're using fear as an excuse to lessen innocent people's civil liberties. They wouldn't do that, would they? Just lie to us like that?

---

If your not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to worry about


5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 ..................,.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Treseder

Depends what (the or else) implies.

---

One thing it doesn't imply is what she did on her visit there two months ago which was to smile politely at every turn. The bare minimum she should initiate is to try to indict them for crimes against humanity because ISIS, their creation, is responsible for the deaths of umpteen thousands of people, scores of them were British citizens. The Saudi royals are culpable. Trump is on record as stating they were responsible for 9-11 too. But just like May that didn't stop him from crawling to them as President of the USA just a few weeks ago during his trip there. The stench of hypocrisy is quite rancid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7771896.html

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

She is talking bollox on this one.

Whatsapp encrypted end to end. Programs like truecrypt etc than encrypt a hard drive that would take months if at all to crack. The cyber caliphate is alive and well - and it's only thanks to groups like Anonymous that sites get tracked and taken down. Add on top of that people like that kid in Cardiff with his usb cuff links encrypted with various how to videos etc. There is no clear or easy to 'regulate' the internet.

Proxies, VPNs, the TOR network - she may as well not bother - even if she forces all ISP's to monitor traffic - that would still have little effect.

---

Agreed, and it offers further proof that she is technically illiterate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Who said May didn't have any policies besides Brexit. This seems like a pretty big one, the global suppression of free speach!

---

Shhh..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelsonca61

"When you give up liberty for security, you end up with neither"
Benjamin Franklin

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

He was already on a watch list so I doubt it would have made a difference.

Id rather not give up my civil liberties thanks. That's the one thing terrorist attacks achieve is people allowing the government to rule by fear.

---

:thumbup:

Of course terrorism occurred before the Internet, but why make it easier for these assholes to proliferate their hatred and their actions by allowing total freedom on the Internet.
Do most of you who are against her words, have a virus protection on your own PC's ? Why, because it would be downright stoooopid not to protect your PC as much as is possible, even though you can't guarantee you won't get a virus that messes with your PC.
What May is suggesting is to try and protect our citizens in the same way as virus protection, but there's no guarantee that scum won't try to kill our people.
I know what is more important to protect and it's not your PC !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDerrida

Of course terrorism occurred before the Internet, but why make it easier for these assholes to proliferate their hatred and their actions by allowing total freedom on the Internet.
Do most of you who are against her words, have a virus protection on your own PC's ? Why, because it would be downright stoooopid not to protect your PC as much as is possible, even though you can't guarantee you won't get a virus that messes with your PC.
What May is suggesting is to try and protect our citizens in the same way as virus protection, but there's no guarantee that scum won't try to kill our people.
I know what is more important to protect and it's not your PC !!!

---

They will more than likely get no extra info about terrorist through these means though. A terrorist isn't using a hotmail account or anything without TOR or a VPN.

You could completely protect your computer from viruses by not connecting to the internet or never turning it on. Why wouldn't you do that if it means you'd be completely safe?

If our response is a music concert at a cricket ground and giving up our digital privacy (what little we have already) then our way of life has been lost and all we have got is a bit of justin bierber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surge

If our response is a music concert at a cricket ground and giving up our digital privacy (what little we have already) then our way of life has been lost and all we have got is a bit of justin bierber.

---

Grow up !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

They will more than likely get no extra info about terrorist through these means though. A terrorist isn't using a hotmail account or anything without TOR or a VPN.

You could completely protect your computer from viruses by not connecting to the internet or never turning it on. Why wouldn't you do that if it means you'd be completely safe?

---

Totally understand that the average terrorist is unlikely to use a hotmail account, but our intelligence services are not stupid and if they can get any advantage over terrorism, then I would support that. Wouldn't you?
Your second paragraph has no relevance !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

They will more than likely get no extra info about terrorist through these means though. A terrorist isn't using a hotmail account or anything without TOR or a VPN.

---

And even if they were, they would simply stop using it. The only ones who'd be caught are the dumb ones who would only have messed up their attack in some other way.

It's a sponge sword of a suggestion but will play great with the voters Theresa is targeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDerrida

Of course terrorism occurred before the Internet, but why make it easier for these assholes to proliferate their hatred and their actions by allowing total freedom on the Internet.
Do most of you who are against her words, have a virus protection on your own PC's ? Why, because it would be downright stoooopid not to protect your PC as much as is possible, even though you can't guarantee you won't get a virus that messes with your PC.
What May is suggesting is to try and protect our citizens in the same way as virus protection, but there's no guarantee that scum won't try to kill our people.
I know what is more important to protect and it's not your PC !!!

---

In the other thread you said "Why should other religions suffer because of the intolerance of Muslims" well why should I lose my privacy because of others? especially when I don't think it will make people any safer, how much planning on the internet does it take to decide to hire a van and go on a rampage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

In the other thread you said "Why should other religions suffer because of the intolerance of Muslims" well why should I lose my privacy because of others? especially when I don't think it will make people any safer, how much planning on the internet does it take to decide to hire a van and go on a rampage?

---

It is not the only solution to deal with terrorism, just one.
Just because you don't think it will make people safe, does that make you right. It's just your opinion, which you're entitled. I will err on the side of our intelligence and security services to do their best to safeguard the country rather some people on a football forum, who are getting uppity because of the remotest chance their Internet freedom will be eroded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

TOR has allegedly been compromised to a certain extent nowadays. What I would add though is that ISPs could do more to log metadata of IP traffic. Also there is a system called Fortinet which basically redirects a copy of network traffic and does a packet analysis - they use this in the NHS. I would hope GCHQ use something similar - but maybe they arent allowed to.

It's something like that needs to change when May talks about the internet being regulated. They arent inteested in your porno habits they just want to try and catch the bad guys earlier, that along with powers to arrest on suspicion of being religiously mentally ill could help us

---

And I think they are going to get some necessary hashtag experts in too so it'll all get sorted out nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

TOR has allegedly been compromised to a certain extent nowadays. What I would add though is that ISPs could do more to log metadata of IP traffic. Also there is a system called Fortinet which basically redirects a copy of network traffic and does a packet analysis - they use this in the NHS. I would hope GCHQ use something similar - but maybe they arent allowed to.

It's something like that needs to change when May talks about the internet being regulated. They arent inteested in your porno habits they just want to try and catch the bad guys earlier, that along with powers to arrest on suspicion of being religiously mentally ill could help us

---

An interesting blog about May's proposals:

https://boingboing.net/2017/06/04/th...ng-canute.html

"This, then, is what Theresa May is proposing:

* All Britons' communications must be easy for criminals, voyeurs and foreign spies to intercept

* Any firms within reach of the UK government must be banned from producing secure software

* All major code repositories, such as Github and Sourceforge, must be blocked

* Search engines must not answer queries about web-pages that carry secure software

* Virtually all academic security work in the UK must cease -- security research must only take place in proprietary research environments where there is no onus to publish one's findings, such as industry R&D and the security services

* All packets in and out of the country, and within the country, must be subject to Chinese-style deep-packet inspection and any packets that appear to originate from secure software must be dropped

* Existing walled gardens (like Ios and games consoles) must be ordered to ban their users from installing secure software

* Anyone visiting the country from abroad must have their smartphones held at the border until they leave

* Proprietary operating system vendors (Microsoft and Apple) must be ordered to redesign their operating systems as walled gardens that only allow users to run software from an app store, which will not sell or give secure software to Britons

* Free/open source operating systems -- that power the energy, banking, ecommerce, and infrastructure sectors -- must be banned outright"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kris

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

---

Very good post,
Spedger

This is such a bad idea on so many levels.

It's interesting to note that the less someone knows about this subject, the more keen they are to give away my freedom on my behalf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDerrida

Of course terrorism occurred before the Internet, but why make it easier for these assholes to proliferate their hatred and their actions by allowing total freedom on the Internet.
Do most of you who are against her words, have a virus protection on your own PC's ? Why, because it would be downright stoooopid not to protect your PC as much as is possible, even though you can't guarantee you won't get a virus that messes with your PC.
What May is suggesting is to try and protect our citizens in the same way as virus protection, but there's no guarantee that scum won't try to kill our people.
I know what is more important to protect and it's not your PC !!!

---

A completely false analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

An interesting blog about May's proposals:

https://boingboing.net/2017/06/04/th...ng-canute.html

"This, then, is what Theresa May is proposing:

* All Britons' communications must be easy for criminals, voyeurs and foreign spies to intercept

* Any firms within reach of the UK government must be banned from producing secure software

* All major code repositories, such as Github and Sourceforge, must be blocked

* Search engines must not answer queries about web-pages that carry secure software

* Virtually all academic security work in the UK must cease -- security research must only take place in proprietary research environments where there is no onus to publish one's findings, such as industry R&D and the security services

* All packets in and out of the country, and within the country, must be subject to Chinese-style deep-packet inspection and any packets that appear to originate from secure software must be dropped

* Existing walled gardens (like Ios and games consoles) must be ordered to ban their users from installing secure software

* Anyone visiting the country from abroad must have their smartphones held at the border until they leave

* Proprietary operating system vendors (Microsoft and Apple) must be ordered to redesign their operating systems as walled gardens that only allow users to run software from an app store, which will not sell or give secure software to Britons

* Free/open source operating systems -- that power the energy, banking, ecommerce, and infrastructure sectors -- must be banned outright"

---

Oh look what it says on a blog, it must be true :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

Oh look what it says on a blog, it must be true :shrug:

---

How many times have you come on here with a "my mate says" story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

I dont think that is what they are proposing. It's impossible to ban someone from designing new encryption technology. What they want is the ability to trace. I would happily bet a fiver CGHQ already have cracks for most tools - but that it's not revealed.

Anything put into place could be time restricted anyway, difficult times require difficult responses Im afraid.
GCHQ and others are actively shutting down websites on a daily basis, but it is so so easy to recreate a site in minutes. If there was an easy fix answer it would have been put into place by now.

---

Upgrading the NHS computers from XP or paying for the update was an easy fix too.