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

Status
Not open for further replies.

neil_g

neil_g

neil_g

Soldato
Joined
9 Dec 2007
Posts
10,492
Location
Hants
Trusty said:
post it up.
Click to expand...
I appreciate it's hard to Google with your head buried so far in the ground, so sure..

Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
 

Trusty

Trusty

Trusty

Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
16,069
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
Serious Fraud Office -- yep...complete evil people working there for sure.
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust - yep, them too, can't trust them
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority - definitely in the mafia these people.

Better watch out mate, they are coming for you.
 

Kenai

Kenai

Kenai

Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,849
Trusty said:
Serious Fraud Office -- yep...complete evil people working there for sure.
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust - yep, them too, can't trust them

Better watch out mate, they are coming for you.
Click to expand...
Why do the Food Standards Agency need access to anyone's browsing history? Department of Transport?
 

Amp34

Amp34

Amp34

Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Macro said:
Ahhh, multibillion dollar global companies held up as a beacon of freedom imposing their own standards of censorship and absolutely not, under any circumstances, nu uh, trying to control human nature... Wow, just wow...
Click to expand...

The difference is if you can't find the censored information on www.google.com you can just go to www.bbc.co.uk, or www.breitbart.com or www.infowars.com. It's called choice.

When a country decides what you can and cannot view you can't just type in a different web address. The equivalent would be upping sticks and leaving the country...
 

Macro

Macro

Macro

Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2006
Posts
5,791
crinkleshoes said:
They can call themselves whatever they want, doesn't make it a communist state and I guarantee you cannot point out a single communist state to me because none has existed.

They are a fascist dictatorship.

I suggest you read a book or two... heck even wikipedia would tell you the meaning of communism while citing its sources for your appraisal.
Click to expand...
I like you, you're quite funny if a little confused... :D
 

Trusty

Trusty

Trusty

Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
16,069
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity

Rroff

Rroff

Rroff

Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,050
Trusty said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...owers-to-be-unveiled-by-Theresa-May-live.html

I much prefer we give right to GCHQ to spy on potential terrorists, we can't have it all our way i feel. Security comes at a cost, it depends what you view as acceptable i suppose.
Click to expand...

Properly invested in they can maintain a significant capability to spy on potential terrorists without having to take measures that potentially infringe on wider liberties or significantly risk making people more vulnerable to run of the mill cyber criminals who for most people are going to be something they are far more likely to have to deal with than terrorism.

This far too much comes down to trying to take shortcuts with resources required for surveillance and cheap out on the cost required resources wise.
 

Trusty

Trusty

Trusty

Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
16,069
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
Kenai said:
I suppose a straight answer was too much to expect but at least you managed to avoid saying spectrum this time.
Click to expand...

Listen i don't know, go get an interview with the department of transport or something, put it this way, i put more faith in the people at the top making these decisions over the average person on the street. The general public are morons arent they.. lol

If the next government want to reel it in, they can. That's the beauty of democracy, we can vote people out.

ps.. spectrum
 
Last edited:

Trusty

Trusty

Trusty

Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
16,069
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
Rroff said:
Properly invested in they can maintain a significant capability to spy on potential terrorists without having to take measures that potentially infringe on wider liberties
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but do you feel that your liberties have been trodden on? The people at GCHQ are not there to stamp their foot on the innocent. They get their rockers off by taking down evil scum

Watch Stacey Dooley's documentary about child exploitation, it's on the BBC. Its interesting
 

Macro

Macro

Macro

Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2006
Posts
5,791
Amp34 said:
The difference is if you can't find the censored information on www.google.com you can just go to www.bbc.co.uk, or www.breitbart.com or www.infowars.com. It's called choice.

When a country decides what you can and cannot view you can't just type in a different web address. The equivalent would be upping sticks and leaving the country...
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree - it just makes me chuckle to see the naive believe what we have now as some kind of uncensored utopia, both on and offline. If you think you're not censored every day both by big business who have slowly taken over the internet feeding the vast majority of people with the" truth", new and approved by whichever multi billion dollar company it is which serves it up and in every day "real life" then I have a bridge here I'd like to sell you.

How many of the anti censorship posters stomping off to the moral high ground here are prepared to demand protection for the rights of pedophiles, racists and terrorists to be able to promote their activities freely and recruit to their causes, or is it only oppressive censorship if it happens to impinge on your particular set of moral imperatives?

To quote another poster here there is a spectrum with no black and white definitions and all we can do is make out best judgement at any given time. Should that be prescribed by the government, no. Should it be left in the hands of big business, no. Should we consider a mechanism for the online world to reflect the rules and consequences of the offline world? I don't know but I think there's a debate to be had there.
 

Amp34

Amp34

Amp34

Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Trusty said:
Why go with such an extreme argument, it's mental. I say there should be some sort of regulation on the internet, like there already is, whats the big deal. seriously. go wear your tin foil hat eh
:D
Click to expand...

It's really not. I recommend you go look at the IPA act of 2016 where the government are now requiring ISPs to log where you went on the internet.

The physical equivalent of that is to log where you went on your day to day business when out of the house. It literally is:

Trusty left the house at 8:42am, he then got to 56 Longshore Road at 9:05 before walking to Tescos at 10:25. At 11:15 he arrived at his place of work and subsequently left and got back to his house at 5:30, then going to the **** and Bull at 7:23pm, arriving back home at 11:23pm.

That's what ISPs are being required to log, for every internet connection, for an entire year. Incidentally warrants aren't explicitly needed to access this information either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016

So far the legislation is not requiring ISPs to log what you actually did at those locations, perhaps in part because more and more websites are now using SSL encryption, but considering the government are already using this broad piece of legislation in other ways I'm not expecting it to stay like that for long, especially if they go through with their encryption banning/backdoor ideas.

So back to the point of that post. Would you be happy if the government logged your physical locations in the same way? If it's so important that security services be able to log where people went on the internet, so it's easier for them to stop people engaging hitman (his example, not mine) why is it not so important that we do it in the physical world?
 

Trusty

Trusty

Trusty

Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
16,069
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom