Theresa May to create new internet that would be controlled and regulated by government

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trusty said:
Well i'm probably one of the weird ones who wouldn't mind working for company that will eventually install microchips under your skin or something. It's not for everyone obviously. That film, Equilibrium, i think it is, like i wouldn't want that. Like i've said before, were nowhere near that point and there is a balance between security and what data is collected for our saftey. I'm not as fearful at the moment as you it seems, that's not say i want everything stripped away, we must get away from this extreme you seem to have painted me with.
Click to expand...

You mean like an rfid chip?

Hmmm, putting barcodes on human beings, where have i heard that before?
 
And here's a good article discussing the phone issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ords-like-cash-machine-ripa-three-ee-vodafone

Specifically this:

Mobile operators must by law store a year of call records of all of their customers, which police forces and other agencies can then access without a warrant using the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

Ripa is the interception law giving authority to much of GCHQ’s mass surveillance. The law was again under the spotlight recently after it was used to identify sources of journalists from at least two national newspapers, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday.
Click to expand...

RIPA is the precursor to the IPA and was (and still is) extremely controversial. One of the founding principles of a free press is no state interference, yet using RIPA anonymous sources are being uncovered. That causes large issues for whistleblowers and other people letting the press know the unauthorised actions of government.*

These powers can and are being used to essentially suppress our media.

It's unlikely 10 years is going to make a difference, but there is a steady erosion of liberty, freedom and privacy that is the bedrock of what makes us "great".

There is a big issue with modern technology and privacy as I mentioned in the previous post, but we have gone way too far in the wrong direction recently and the government (especially under May - who as home secretary and now Prime Minister is an exceptionally authoritarian leader) are doing what is essentially a power grab. That is only going to get worse as we leave the EU and the more privacy minded courts there. :(

*This coincidentally is another use of TOR - for whistleblowers around the world to protect their anonymity from governments they are exposing. It's actually part funded by the US government for this reason. Unfortunately what's good for the goose is not always considered good for the gander.While some parts of the US government are funding it, others are trying to damage it because it's exposing illegal/unlawful activities perpetuated by them as well (the UK gov is doing the same).
 
Last edited:
What happened to the journalists? What did they do? again, it comes back to GCHQ and what they are doing there, do you believe they are doing good work or bad work? I believe they are doing good work, looking out for us, a silent knight or something, that's basically what they are all like, being batman for us. The guys at MI6 and stuff are more traditional spooks but the guys at GCHQ are the type of people that go home and put an x-men t shirt on lol
 
Last edited:
I believe they can do just as good work without bulk collection of data. And lets not forget here that it's not just GCHQ that are using this data - you were already shown the list of organisations that have and will have access to this data. One of the biggest problems organisations like GCHQ have at the moment is too much data to analyse. The good data is getting swamped by noise - hence why targeted data collection is usually better for real world applications. Bulk collection is more for getting as much information as you can to use at a later date.

What happened to the journalists? It's not the journalists that are the issue. It's their sources - they could either be fired, "persuaded" to not leak information again, or in some cases tried and convicted of crimes - for the audacity of releasing to journalists crimes being perpetuated by the government. If sources can be identified then it's going to reduce the number of people wiling to come forward, which in turn means the government has less scrutiny. The latter is one of the main mandates of a free press.

Theres a lot more at stake here than your own browser history.
 
Amp34 said:
*This coincidentally is another use of TOR - for whistleblowers around the world to protect their anonymity from governments they are exposing. It's actually part funded by the US government for this reason. Unfortunately what's good for the goose is not always considered good for the gander.While some parts of the US government are funding it, others are trying to damage it because it's exposing illegal/unlawful activities perpetuated by them as well (the UK gov is doing the same).
Click to expand...

And like i've said before, don't let a few bad eggs ruin it for everyone. Teachers, sports people, religious folk, politicians, government agents, there's some bad people in every walk of life
 
Amp34 said:
What happened to the journalists? It's not the journalists that are the issue. It's their sources .
Click to expand...

We sort of need to know what this was about to have a full understanding as to whether GCHQ were correct or not, do you not agree?

Just realised that article was 2014
 
Last edited:
but you stated that it's government which is worse than big companies, it just depends what you read i suppose. I think another large issue with all of this, is we're quite new to the internet and we don't fully know what it's about and what it means for soceity
 
Trusty said:
And like i've said before, don't let a few bad eggs ruin it for everyone. Teachers, sports people, religious folk, politicians, government agents, there's some bad people in every walk of life
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why should we be ruining everyone's privacy because of a few bad eggs...

Trusty said:
We sort of need to know what this was about to have a full understanding as to whether GCHQ were correct or not, do you not agree?

Just realised that article was 2014
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with GCHQ. The police used RIPA (using an ostensibly "anti terror" law) to find journalists sources in the "Plebgate" incident.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.the...fficial-complaint-ripa-journalists-met-police

And that's one of the big problems. Would the source of the expenses scandal have leaked the full expenses if they knew they were going to be uncovered? What about other smaller leaks and potentially similar sized leaks in the future?


Another example is Edward Snowdon who came out himself because of the scale of the leaks, but it shows the sort of thing we need to protect*. He released the data to two large reputable papers who then released parts of it to the public.

Unfortunately even western governments need scrutiny to keep them "honest". The Uk government have time and time again proved that, given extensive laws, they abuse them to serve their own purposes.

*and why governments are not happy with not being able to trace leakers and try and stop them.
 
Trusty said:
but you stated that it's government which is worse than big companies, it just depends what you read i suppose. I think another large issue with all of this, is we're quite new to the internet and we don't fully know what it's about and what it means for soceity
Click to expand...

No, we stated that governments can have a greater impact on your life than big companies, and you don't have a choice of using their "services"/ following their rules. Big difference.

"But he/she did it" wasn't a good excuse when we were 10, let alone now.

And as already pointed out there is a lot of pressure to restrict the actions of those companies and to tighten privacy laws - some of which have already been tightened since that article. Government power is going on the opposite direction.
 
Amp34 said:
And as already pointed out there is a lot of pressure to restrict the actions of those companies and to tighten privacy laws - some of which have already been tightened since that article. Government power is going on the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Who's tightened the big companies privacy power?
 
Trusty said:
Because those bad egg's can cause devastation on huge amounts of innocent people, that won't happen to you from the government if you're innocent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/111...-three-times-as-long-to-track-terrorists.html
Click to expand...

Perhaps they (security services) shouldn't have been doing so many illegal/unlawful things then.

But again your using the terrorist excuse. You could catch even more terrorists if we bugged everyone and listened into their physical conversations 24 hours a day...

You do realize most of the terrorists comitting attacks were already known to security services - largely because they had been arested for non internet related things right? This is where targeted data collection would be useful, not wholesale collection of data.
 
Our security services are corrupt are they? do me favour, that shows such ignorance.

Who tightened the big companies privacy powers?
 
Trusty said:
Who's tightened the big companies privacy power?
Click to expand...

Governments..

Or in this example the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.computerworlduk.com/security/10-things-you-need-know-about-new-eu-data-protection-regulation-3610851/?amp

Now compare that to the IPA.

Trusty said:
Our security services are corrupt are they? do me favour, that shows such ignorance.
Click to expand...

Where did I say corrupt? I said illegal/unlawful...

Don't take my word for it. How about the rulings of Tribunals?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa

The regime that governs the sharing between Britain and the US of electronic communications intercepted in bulk was unlawful until last year, a secretive UK tribunal has ruled.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) declared on Friday that regulations covering access by Britain’s GCHQ to emails and phone records intercepted by the US National Security Agency (NSA) breached human rights law.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...agencies-unlawfully-collected-data-for-decade
British security agencies have secretly and unlawfully collected massive volumes of confidential personal data, including financial information, on citizens for more than a decade, senior judges have ruled.

The investigatory powers tribunal, which is the only court that hears complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, said the security services operated an illegal regime to collect vast amounts of communications data, tracking individual phone and web use and other confidential personal information, without adequate safeguards or supervision for 17 years.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ance-privacy-snowden-usa-freedom-act-congress

For anyone still in doubt about the impact of Edward Snowden’s revelations, it might be instructive to review what has been going on in the US Congress over the last few months, with legislators grappling with bills aimed at curbing the surveillance capabilities of the NSA and other federal agencies. In the end, in a classic congressional farce, there was a brief intermission in the NSA’s data-gathering capabilities, after which the Senate passed a bill to end the agency’s bulk collection of the phone records of millions of Americans.

At one level it’s a significant moment: one in which – as a Guardian leader writer put it – “an outlaw rewrites the law”. And in a few other countries, notably Germany, Snowden’s revelations do seem to be having a demonstrable impact – as witnessed, for example, by the Bundestag’s inquiry into NSA surveillance within the Federal Republic.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of other information for you too. The releases sent shockwaves through governments around the world. Many activities were found illegal and unlawful and several countries also had major investigations as a direct result of the leak. Countries also changed their laws as a direct result. Both the US and Germany introduced more restrictive laws governing their security services. The UK government on the other hand - under Theresa May primarily - just decided to change the law to make what the security services were doing now legal.

You can add all that to the RIPA case I mentioned earlier.

Governments need oversight and a free press an anonymous sources of information are an integral part of that.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Right, so why couldn't the UK do that, if they wanted to curb big firms? Obviously because we were in the EU or something.

Are you saying other intelligent services don't spy?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/world/europe/germany-bnd-surveillance-der-spiegel.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-spy-agencies-mass-surveillance-snowden
Click to expand...

The UK have done some things, but the EU appears to be much hotter on citizens privacy concerns than the UK government at the moment. Something to think about as we may see repealing of privacy laws in the near future after leaving the EU...

It's similar in the US, the republicans seem to want less privacy laws and seem to be busy trying to repeal ones put in place when Obama was in power.

As for other intelligence services not spying, no that's not what I'm saying. In fact you're providing more evidence for my argument.

If you're trying to say what the British and Us intelligence services did wasn't unlawful/wrong then take that up with the intelligence tribunals and is congressional members.
 
Trusty said:
but you stated that it's government which is worse than big companies, it just depends what you read i suppose. I think another large issue with all of this, is we're quite new to the internet and we don't fully know what it's about and what it means for soceity
Click to expand...


Speak for yourself :p I've been using the internet for a hair short of a quarter of a century :s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom