Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[Hagar]

A minor issue? It's an attack on your freedom and your privacy.

Some people seriously would sleepwalk into a facist dictatorship, sacrificing freedom and personal liberties for "think of the children; terrorists".

All of the above, I agree. As to the likelihood of major changes to the internet as we know it, I think that it would be minimal.

I protect myself with a VPN and avoid posting real personal data online as much as possible. If banks and other databases were as careful as I am, there would be a lot less fraud.

However if MI5 want to know all about me, I am fairly relaxed about that.

 

[ubersonic]

Actually I don't want to focus on porn exclusively. May has labelled lots of stuff "extremist" or "harmful", and Google won't be allowed to return results for those either.

We here at Google are sorry, but your search for "Intel Extreme Edition" has been prohibited in your country.

We here at Google are sorry, but your search for "Asrock Fatal1ty" has been prohibited in your country.

Oh well, at least Nvidia renamed Detonator to Forceware haha.

 

[FoxEye]

So not true then.

It's true, just more nuanced than I initially presented it.

There is also this, 100% truth for you:

Internet porn will be regulated by the BBFC per May's proposals. Anything which would not get a R18 certificate from the BBFC will be *banned*.

There is a long list of things the BBFC will not classify, and due to the family nature of this forum I cannot list them.

But this will block a great deal of porn from being able to be viewed online in the UK (sans workarounds/proxies).

 

[McBain]

I don't mean to be rude but you can't actually disagree with a fact, you can only be of the wrong opinion. Killing a suspect without due process or a trail is a travesty of justice, especially when a first world nation with established legal process is holding the trigger. It's that simple.

Call it what you like, wrong opinion or not, killing him wasn't a travesty of justice in my eyes. It's that simple.

 

[Conscript]

For those worthy of it, I would tend to agree.

Do you understand how contradictory this statement is?

How do you determine who is "worthy" of fair legal processes, without fair legal processes?

 

[Hagar]

But this will block a great deal of porn from being able to be viewed online in the UK (sans workarounds/proxies).

And that's bad?

 

[Macro]

I'm not playing that game. Anyone who wants to can Google her proposals; they are variously and comprehensively reported all over the place.

Source = just look around.

Here's a quote from May herself:

Britain should become "The global leader in the regulation of the use of ... the internet".

She wants a blanket ban on porn.
She wants to tell Google/all search engines not to return certain search results, specified by her government.
She wants Police to be able to have back-door access to all personal data, communications, etc.

Read up on the proposals. I'd seriously use the words "shocking" and "unparalleled" to describe the regulations she wants. Commentators have described her proposals as being "worse than China; NK" in their scope.

Seriously.

I'd like to see some real first hand source to this and not hyperbole though. For example..

>>She wants to tell Google/all search engines not to return certain search results, specified by her government.
Sounds awful - unless its "Terrorist manuals" in which case it seems entirely reasonable.

I don't see anything in what you've written about "text only communications", UK Only internet and Government able to delete and censor ANYTHING without oversight.?

To be open I'm against any kind of infringement on my rights but I struggle to have a sensible position on proposals based on hyperbole . As an aside is internet content conforming to the same regulations as other non internet based content necessarily a bad thing? NOw perhaps that's better established by a global standard but the with the commercialisation of the internet over the last 10-15 years i'm afraid the days of it being the wild west has long gone.

 

[JohnnyG]

It's true, just more nuanced than I initially presented it.

There is also this, 100% truth for you:

Internet porn will be regulated by the BBFC per May's proposals. Anything which would not get a R18 certificate from the BBFC will be *banned*.

There is a long list of things the BBFC will not classify, and due to the family nature of this forum I cannot list them.

But this will block a great deal of porn from being able to be viewed online in the UK (sans workarounds/proxies).

That doesn't really matter much as I didn't question it.
A blanket ban on porn would mean no porn at all & that's what you claimed May wanted so you either didn't read the proposals you disagree with or are just twisted them to make it sound worse.

 

[Narj]

Isn't the idea of Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn negotiating Brexit terms a load of old codswallop anyway? The people negotiating should be..um... you know, professional negotiators?

 

[ubersonic]

A blanket ban on porn would mean no porn at all & that's what you claimed May wanted

Technically speaking he wasn't wrong, that is what she wants personally, but not what shes planning to legislate.

 

[McBain]

Do you understand how contradictory this statement is?

How do you determine who is "worthy" of fair legal processes, without fair legal processes?

We're talking about specifics here, Bin Laden, what chance was there ever going to be of a trial? Let's be realistic.

It's not as though anyone can sit there and suggest he was innocent.

 

[FoxEye]

Call it what you like, wrong opinion or not, killing him wasn't a travesty of justice in my eyes. It's that simple.

I think the point was due process.

We (the general public) have assumed/determined that Bin Laden is who the media have told us he was; did the things they told us he did. If those assumptions are correct, and for example he really was the head of a Al-Qweeeeduh and did plan/authorise the deaths of thousands of innocents, then you could say that justice was ultimately dispatched.

However due process is there to prove this; to prove those assumptions we have made beyond reasonable doubt. Did those terrorists responsible for 9/11 really have a link to Bin Laden? Etc. The intelligence communities say that they did. The intelligence communities also say that they cannot release the evidence into the public domain.

This is where you now have murky water. We have a service(s) that are killing people based on evidence they say they have, but cannot share. And these people cannot be publicly tried before being executed.

Uh oh. Now there's a problem. Anyone with critical thinking ability should have pause to stop and think about this. About safeguards to protect people from abuse of this extra-judicial killing.

 

[Dis86]

I think the point was due process.

We (the general public) have assumed/determined that Bin Laden is who the media have told us he was; did the things they told us he did. If those assumptions are correct, and for example he really was the head of a Al-Qweeeeduh and did plan/authorise the deaths of thousands of innocents, then you could say that justice was ultimately dispatched.

However due process is there to prove this; to prove those assumptions we have made beyond reasonable doubt. Did those terrorists responsible for 9/11 really have a link to Bin Laden? Etc. The intelligence communities say that they did. The intelligence communities also say that they cannot release the evidence into the public domain.

This is where you now have murky water. We have a service(s) that are killing people based on evidence they say they have, but cannot share. And these people cannot be publicly tried before being executed.

Uh oh. Now there's a problem. Anyone with critical thinking ability should have pause to stop and think about this. About safeguards to protect people from abuse of this extra-judicial killing.

He was armed. What're they supposed to do? Ask him nicely to come to trial?

 

[No1newts]

We're talking about specifics here, Bin Laden, what chance was there ever going to be of a trial? Let's be realistic.

It's not as though anyone can sit there and suggest he was innocent.

But you can't talk specifics as one can lead to the other. He was a confirmed terrorism, so it's ok to shoot all confirmed terrorist on site and hunt them down?

Many may be ok with that but what's the next step once the door is open? Suspected terrorist, well we may as well just incase, you can never be too sure. What's suspected? Etc etc etc.

Once you open the door to extra judicial killings it's easy to push it open that bit more by increments until you end up so far down the path there's no way back. Same with the separate debate around encryption/access what sounds reasonable can easily morph we have seen this throughout history and to willingly give up judicial protections of fundamental freedoms is insane.

 

[FoxEye]

And that's bad?

I make no judgement on whether porn is bad/wrong/harmful/otherwise.

It's bad that Theresa May wants to decide this for all of us based on her personal beliefs.

Anyway, like I said, it's not just porn. May has a list of things she thinks are "harmful" or "extremist", and you won't get search results for these either. Who knows how many things May could arbitrarily put in those categories? Half of the threads on this very forum could end up censored (from appearing on Google).

It's a good view into her mindset. And we've also had her time as HomeSec to draw upon as well.

Since there's already a thread for this, I won't comment further.

 

[ubersonic]

He was armed.

You're thinking of his wife (who had a knife), he was unarmed.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Isn't the idea of Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn negotiating Brexit terms a load of old codswallop anyway? The people negotiating should be..um... you know, professional negotiators?

In a nutshell. It is the usual, the professionals do the work and the leaders come in for a signing ceremony and group photograph. It makes a nonsense of the "who do you want to negotiate" spin.

 

[MissChief]

It wouldn't be beyond my thoughts and no doubt hers that anything derogatory towards her or the Tory Party would be added to the list of things not searchable on Google now would it? THe ultimate in censorship. Being able to remove anything bad about you and your party from search results. As above, we're getting into the realms of China and North Korea here. Scary times.

 

[Dis86]

You're thinking of his wife (who had a knife), he was unarmed.

I though she had a knife and he was reaching for an ak?

 

[FoxEye]

He was armed. What're they supposed to do? Ask him nicely to come to trial?

The principle also applies to drone strikes, etc.

In warfare you can kill your enemy without trial, and that's why we've called this a "war on terror" - it's very deliberate. It removes the need for the judicial process in many people's eyes.

But in reality these terrorists are criminals. Criminals in this country aren't routinely executed by special forces/drone strikes, etc. Maybe in the US, but hey...

Have we removed the need for any kind of judicial oversight, rule of law, etc? A terrorist can be killed like an enemy combatant in times of war. The problem is now that you can seemingly apply the term "terrorist" to any number of people... who decides? What are the rules for determining who can just be killed without judicial process and who must be given a trial, etc?