Theresa May to create new internet that would be controlled and regulated by government
- Thread starter Old Man
- Start date
- Status
But the suggested porn ban highlights the fact that TM and her team have no clue about technology.
How can you trust them to craft laws governing our digital security?
More importantly, it provides a window into her mind, and her ideology. She wants to control the internet; control the flow of information; control access to media. This could be porn but equally it could be news stories she doesn't like/ sources she doesn't approve of.
I'm still curious about how on earth you go about putting a backdoor into encryption...
We already have algorithms which are (for practical purposes) unbreakable when implemented properly. Even if they release a new algorithm with their "backdoor" in, why would anyone use it over the existing methods?!
Define "innocent"?
They wouldn't use it. They might be able to force businesses to, but the people this backdoor is aimed at stopping won't. Which is why it just won't work.
At the end of the day, they can put in all the monitoring and backdoors they like. But all someone has to do to make the whole thing useless is use currently available encryption methods, which are still practically impossible to crack. E.g. OpenVPN can hide itself as https looking traffic and use any port, so it can't even be blocked by ISPs.
Last edited:
I suggest you reread what I wrote. I specifically said your viewpoint wasn't the issue, rather your complete ignorance of major events over the last few years (for example the findings of various tribunals and senate committees that security services had acted unlawfully and illegally).
That said you still haven't picked up the significance of it all - at least that appears so with your comment about looking at inane posts on a forum. It's been clearly stated multiple times to you that the issue is far greater than someone's browsing history. If you're still insistent on assuming that's the only issue then there's nothing more that can be said.
As for what I'm doing? Well I'm certainly not going to be voting for someone that with that in their manifesto.
Last time I checked the likes of the IRA and ETA didn't use sticks and stones, they used automatic weapons and high explosives.
Out of interest what is your opinion on regulation for companies? Do you agree that banks and oil companies should be regulated, or do you think they should be allowed to do what they think is best?
The reason I ask is because if you believe that people are generally good, and that organizations like the security services should be allowed to dictate rules and regulations regarding their actions - because they know best, then I assume that must continue to banks and other organizations. Hence I assume you are anti regulation in general?
I don't believe in laissez faire capitalism, no.
So you believe organizations should be regulated and scrutinized - with their wishes taken into account, but regulated for the good of the nation and citizens? So that should mean you are also for the regulation and scrutiny of the security services. What the security services want should be compared to the good of the country and citizens rights right?
Ergo you must agree that just because the security services want to do something doesn't mean they should.
It appears like he's cut from the same mound as Scorza - we should give up all our rights to fight the bogeyman, sorry I mean Islamic terrorism.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
so, we've established:
you trust the governments intentions implicitly, you don't mind them having access to any data you have as you know they're the good guys who wont do anything bad with it.
you trust the governments motives implicitly, you don't feel that government control of the mass media is in any way shape or form going to end up as a propaganda machine, despite all of historys lessons as to where that leads.
you trust the governments security implicitly, you feel that the government will be able to keep your data safe, from all those hackers out there, y'know, the ones who haven't had quite the track record of successfully whistleblowing and taking out major networks such as the nhs, the nhs doesn't have any sensitive data does it?
you believe this will work, despite the list of examples (going back as far as recorded history goes) that all the things the government wants to stop happened, and indeed happened on a much larger scale, before the internet. the terrorists terrorised, the paedos still screwed up childrens lives, the murderers murdered etc etc.
tbh i'm not sure "sucker" is the right term, although to be so crass as to quote a generic term, "sheeple" has never been so apt.
It depends on the positives and negatives, i wouldn't support a chemical company dumping it's waste into a river for profits, that is different to the intelligent services pushing the need for powers to do their job properly. The mentality is the key here, a chemical company dumping waste for profit is selfish, intelligent services making it know they can't do their job is jeopardising safety of it's citizens.
Its about the psychology of the people who work within those specific industries.
I don't see any definition there?
Intelligent service is the key here, not government, do you believe the intelligent services are the bad guys?
This is why it's ridiculous to debate, because you've gone so far to the other side of the argument, just because i see that the intelligent services can't do their job properly doesn't translate to Stalin's Russia. Where nowhere near that, and we won't be like that in 20 years time either. It does no good. I see the country as good and prosperous place, there's no reason to believe that we'll suddenly change course and start becoming evil. Like i've said before, we're good people at heart.
Do you think the security of the intelligent services is better than your average home?
Why bring the NHS into it? Was it just the NHS that was hit?
We have a legal system in this country, one of the best in the world.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
That however is a matter of opinion.
You still haven't defined "innocent". Considering you're so sure that if you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about, then you must have an idea of what that actually means?
If you're suggesting it means "within the law" then bear in mind that laws are made, changed and repealed constantly, so what might be "innocent" today, may very well land you in prison tomorrow
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
umm, a government controlled organisation is the government?
Ever heard the term power corrupts? Its a simple concept that the only way to ensure that we dont start down that slippery slope is to ensure that the government has the minimum amountnof necessary power, and the key point, the maximum amount of accountability, traditionally accomplished through a combination of freedom of speech/the media, the requirement for the courts to be involved in critical process like y'know wiretapping someones house (not that they need now ofc thanks to snoopers), and democratic elections.
They've killed one, now they're going for the second, how much easier will it be to take the third?
Doesnt matter how secure they think it is, any system can be breached and its easier to hack one organisation than millions of individuals.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,439
- Location
- SE England
It certainly will.
Are you just posting random links now in the vain hope that one of them might be relevant?
- Status