Theresa may calls for tighter internet regulations after London attack

[mmj_uk]

Theresa doesn't need to tighten Internet regulations. She just needs to watch a bit more television!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-appeared-channel-4-jihadi-documentary-tried/

I don't want to start throwing around blame but it's hard to see this as the security services not dropping the ball on this one IMO

Yeah you've got to laugh at the rest of the parties exploiting this tragedy for election purposes, blaming Tory cuts on police numbers as though he'd flown under the radar.

 

[Hiijinx]

Rounding up all the would be terrorists and radicalised individuals and sticking them all in the same camp. Yeah that doesn't sound at all risky.

 

[Liquidfox]

Likely make VPNs illegal. ISPs told to ban anyone who is connecting to a VPN without pre-arranged authorisation.

That'll never work, as an MSP we have numerous customers who link their branches together with VPN. Not to mention those that are remote workers and may dial their VPN from numerous locations. How would they ever securely transmit confidential corporate data over the internet? This is joke from the outset.

 

[Felon]

That'll never work, as an MSP we have numerous customers who link their branches together with VPN. Not to mention those that are remote workers and may dial their VPN from numerous locations. How would they ever securely transmit confidential corporate data over the internet? This is joke from the outset.

They'd probably introduce some sort of licensing arrangement, where if you're a company or somebody doing a specific job - you're allowed to encrypt your traffic for a small fee, for example if you need site-to-site VPNs, or if you're providing a payment gateway that requires SSL (like any online shop)... or something vaguely along those lines, seeing as it's literally impossible to break the encryption algorithms.

(and yeah, the whole idea is the biggest load of **** to come out of the government, for a long long time)

 

[413x]

Torn on this. More torn than on anything else.
Personal freedom is important. Critical. But I do feel best way to find terrorists etc is through intelligence and scouring the Internet.

That said.. And here is my dilemma.. I would ideally like Internet to be monitored.. But absolutely only for such acts of terrorism. But I know full well this is opening the flood gates and it won't stop there.

Thus I'd vote against it.. I think.. But it does t sit well.

No doubt general public can be brainwashed into this as a.. Vote for monitoring you'll be safe, you lose nothing.
But once it happens. No going back.

Ugh. And another step towards no free thought

 

[Ben3991]

I actually think the monitoring of internet usage is a good idea.

Sure, no one wants their privacy interrupted but at the end of the day, The ‘government’ are not going to be watching everyone’s movements on the web as they happen. It will be stored, and looked at if you become a person of interest. So if you have nothing to hide, I don’t see a problem.

Some will say they don’t want their online ‘history’ stored for security reasons. I would argue however that if someone really wants to, there is most probably free software to be used, by ‘hackers’ sitting at home that if they really wanted to, could easily poke about and see what anyone of us has been up to, so what is the difference?

If it allows people of interest to be better tracked and better investigated, then I’m all for it.

 

[Felon]

Torn on this. More torn than on anything else.
Personal freedom is important. Critical. But I do feel best way to find terrorists etc is through intelligence and scouring the Internet.

That said.. And here is my dilemma.. I would ideally like Internet to be monitored.. But absolutely only for such acts of terrorism. But I know full well this is opening the flood gates and it won't stop there.

Thus I'd vote against it.. I think.. But it does t sit well.

The problem for me, is that they need to get the basics right first - before they try and take on the internet, if you look at the vast majority of previous terrorist attacks - they already had enough information, in many cases arresting an attacker and releasing them, only for them to go on and commit an attack,

On top of all of this, there's the hard truth of there being nothing whatsoever stopping anybody from making their own encrypted messaging system, pretty much anyone can do it - all that happens is people switch things around more often, or post videos to each other on youtube with encrypted messages buried inside the video, or god knows how many other thousands of ways you can encrypt data.

Here's a post I made from a different thread with the list;

7/7 bombers - known to MI5 and the police, had previously been investigated, didn't do any good.
Bataclan ringleader and accomplices - already known to the police, didn't do any good
Charlie Hebdo attacks - all attackers known to the police and intelligence services - didn't do any good.
Brussels suicide bombings (airport and underground) - nearly all attackers known to police and intelligence services - didn't do any good
Nice truck attack - main suspect known to the police - didn't do any good
Berlin Christmas market attack - main suspect known to police, and intelligence services - and in the process of being deported, didn't do any good
Westminster attack, - attacker known to the police and MI5 - didn't do any good,
Manchester attack, - attacker known to the police and MI5 - didn't do any good,
London Bridge attack - one of the attackers featured in a jihad documentary, also reported by third parties - didn't do any good.

In pretty much all cases, the intelligence and information was already there - but there was a failure in actually committing forces to act on it, or investigate it properly - monitoring the internet usage of everyone will just add a billion tonnes extra stuff to sift through, if they can't succeed when the situation is simple, how will they succeed when its complicated by having to sift through Petabytes of data per day.

 

[413x]

The problem for me, is that they need to get the basics right first - before they try and take on the internet, if you look at the vast majority of previous terrorist attacks - they already had enough information, in many cases arresting an attacker and releasing them, only for them to go on and commit an attack,

On top of all of this, there's the hard truth of there being nothing whatsoever stopping anybody from making their own encrypted messaging system, pretty much anyone can do it - all that happens is people switch things around more often, or post videos to each other on youtube with encrypted messages buried inside the video, or god knows how many other thousands of ways you can encrypt data.

Here's a post I made from a different thread with the list;

Absolutely. The government is unqualified to make such important decision. They don't even use terminology correctly.
As usual those who break the law will probably circumvent it.

 

[StriderX]

I for one would happily use my internet to become a false positive, and so should anyone who cares about this.

 

[Felon]

I actually think the monitoring of internet usage is a good idea.

Sure, no one wants their privacy interrupted but at the end of the day, The ‘government’ are not going to be watching everyone’s movements on the web as they happen. It will be stored, and looked at if you become a person of interest. So if you have nothing to hide, I don’t see a problem.

Some will say they don’t want their online ‘history’ stored for security reasons. I would argue however that if someone really wants to, there is most probably free software to be used, by ‘hackers’ sitting at home that if they really wanted to, could easily poke about and see what anyone of us has been up to, so what is the difference?

Can you imagine, the value of hacking into a data centre that contains the browsing histories of every single citizen in the UK and being able to extract that data unencrypted? Whether by someone very talented, or simply a disgruntled government employee (of which there are probably quite a few) just think for a moment..

Imagine how much it's worth to say, gambling companies, or the media - remember, nothing is encrypted - it can all be all be seen, the browsing histories of everyone, celebrities, sports stars, Joe public, absolutely everyone, what they do, who they associate with, what they buy, what they like, dislike, who they're dating, who they're investing in, I mean.. it's just endless when you think about what it really means to have this sort of information 'getting out' imagine being an insurance company and getting access to this data, imagine being a criminal and getting access to it.. The risk is beyond comprehension.

 

[Steampunk]

I actually think the monitoring of internet usage is a good idea.

Sure, no one wants their privacy interrupted but at the end of the day, The ‘government’ are not going to be watching everyone’s movements on the web as they happen. It will be stored, and looked at if you become a person of interest. So if you have nothing to hide, I don’t see a problem.

Some will say they don’t want their online ‘history’ stored for security reasons. I would argue however that if someone really wants to, there is most probably free software to be used, by ‘hackers’ sitting at home that if they really wanted to, could easily poke about and see what anyone of us has been up to, so what is the difference?

If it allows people of interest to be better tracked and better investigated, then I’m all for it.

Yeah, cos it's all the fault of the internet, nothing to do with the budget cuts and 20,000 police officers (many community supports and detectives) she sacked.

Have you ever heard of "mission creep"? How long before the databases built up will be used for other things? We've got to catch the paedophiles, then it will be bank robbers, then "serious crime", then anyone who downloaded a bit of music or a movie, because they are "stealing" from the media cartels. How long before they think of selling the data to private companies, because they want to save the taxpayer the cost of running the system? How long before they trawl through the historical data to find past "crimes" to justify the existence and cost of the apparatus? It's been shown time and time again, that if you give the authorities this kind of power, they will push it to the maximum and beyond.

 

[Matteysan]

Can you imagine, the value of hacking into a data centre that contains the browsing histories of every single citizen in the UK and being able to extract that data unencrypted? Whether by someone very talented, or simply a disgruntled government employee (of which there are probably quite a few) just think for a moment..

Imagine how much it's worth to say, gambling companies, or the media - remember, nothing is encrypted - it can all be all be seen, the browsing histories of everyone, celebrities, sports stars, Joe public, absolutely everyone, what they do, who they associate with, what they buy, what they like, dislike, who they're dating, who they're investing in, I mean.. it's just endless when you think about what it really means to have this sort of information 'getting out' imagine being an insurance company and getting access to this data, imagine being a criminal and getting access to it.. The risk is beyond comprehension.

I really don't think people understand the implications of it at all.

But hey some people like their privacy/freedom to be eroded in the name of stopping terrorism.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I'm not sure the restrictions on internet use is going to get much support on a forum for Geeks, and I'm also sure any laws would be open to abuse by politicians etc.. However...

I had a conversation with a work colleague last night who is utterly convinced that the latest attack was organised by the government in order to salvage the election. He reckoned the Manchester attack was the same. He started justifying it with all sorts of crazy ramblings, one of which being that it was too convenient that one of the killers had an ID card on him.

I was like, "If they were that worried about losing the election then why would they call it 3 years early". His response was, "Aye, you might have a point there".

The free for all internet as a medium is seriously warping some people, and I don't just mean radical Muslims.

 

[StriderX]

I'm not sure the restrictions on internet use is going to get much support on a forum for Geeks, and I'm also sure any laws would be open to abuse by politicians etc.. However...

I had a conversation with a work colleague last night who is utterly convinced that the latest attack was organised by the government in order to salvage the election. He reckoned the Manchester attack was the same. He started justifying it with all sorts of crazy ramblings, one of which being that it was too convenient that one of the killers had an ID card on him.

I was like, "If they were that worried about losing the election then why would they call it 3 years early". His response was, "Aye, you might have a point there".

The free for all internet as a medium is seriously warping some people, and I don't just mean radical Muslims.

It wasn't organised by the government as that would be silly considering how terrible the PM is and how terrible she was as HS, that doesn't mean that the terrorists don't want a politically right-wing government in power to justify their existence. After all terrorism has a relevant definition.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

It wasn't organised by the government as that would be silly considering how terrible the PM is and how terrible she was as HS, that doesn't mean that the terrorists don't want a politically right-wing government in power to justify their existence. After all terrorism has a relevant definition.

Yea, I mean the thought of the Government organising a killing spree in order to get votes is just laughable. They can't even fiddle their expenses without getting busted. The allegation is wrong on so many levels... but my point is that an unrestricted internet allows nonsense like that to spread like a disease.

I know for a fact he gets his "information" from all sorts of half baked websites and forums (cue joke about him being a 10,000 post man in GD )

 

[Trifid]

They'd probably introduce some sort of licensing arrangement, where if you're a company or somebody doing a specific job - you're allowed to encrypt your traffic for a small fee, for example if you need site-to-site VPNs, or if you're providing a payment gateway that requires SSL (like any online shop)... or something vaguely along those lines, seeing as it's literally impossible to break the encryption algorithms.

(and yeah, the whole idea is the biggest load of **** to come out of the government, for a long long time)

And what about self signed certificates? It truly is a unworkable idea that can only harm civil liberties of an entire nation.

 

[HecarimOP]

What a pathetic joke. As pointed out already, many of the people involved in attacks like this over the years were already known to security services, openly preaching their insane idealogy and trying to radicalise others...etc. Nothing was done. So the solution to this is tighter internet regulations. Right. Makes perfect sense.

I was also completely baffled by her statement of 'It's time to get tough on terrorism' or whatever it was she said.

This implies that up until this point they've been taking a somewhat lackadaisical approach to the issue, which sadly seems to be true given the aformentioned knowledge of these people by security sevices.

I would have thought it'd go without saying, that we should always be tough on terrorism regardless. But no, only now, now that children have been blown to pieces, only now that people have been run down and stabbed to death in the streets, is it time to get tough. You're doing an excellent job Theresa.

 

[Greebo]

Yeah you've got to laugh at the rest of the parties exploiting this tragedy for election purposes, blaming Tory cuts on police numbers as though he'd flown under the radar.

The Tories would have done the same.

 

[Felon]

And what about self signed certificates? It truly is a unworkable idea that can only harm civil liberties of an entire nation.

I can actually foresee a situation where you hand £50 to some guy stood on the corner, in the rain on a dark night - in return for a piece of paper with a private key on it, for an illegal VPN, just so you can look at some pornography.

 

[MooMoo444]

It really is dire that both Conservative and Labour seem to be led by idiots.