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

[dbgtz]

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

"Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet," it states. "We disagree."

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

The plans will allow Britain to become "the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet", the manifesto claims.


The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online".
lol


The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

Can't wait to have to report in on my daily activity to chairman Mao.
Also wtf at Buzzfeed

An arguable positive to this though is:

The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a person posted when they were under 18.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The sad truth is that given mass immigration from Islamic countries, this sort of thing is going to become more common as security services have more and more muslims to track and monitor for terror and/or extremist activities.

It's the reason why we now have Police Forces who scarily resemble the military and the reason why historic English liberties have been thrown away such no detention without trial. But hey, at least we're more diverse. Whatever the benefit of being diverse is.

[FlyingJesus]

The worst thing about this is that it went to Buzzfeed first I mean what's next Lib Dems publishing a manifesto titled "16 Things You'll Never Believe We Want To Do To The Country!"

Is half of it even possible though? It reads a lot like someone high up assuming that all they have to do is change the settings in Internet Explorer 6 in order to own the internet

[Jam]

It'll never happen.

[Empired]

The worst thing about this is that it went to Buzzfeed first I mean what's next Lib Dems publishing a manifesto titled "16 Things You'll Never Believe We Want To Do To The Country!"

Is half of it even possible though? It reads a lot like someone high up assuming that all they have to do is change the settings in Internet Explorer 6 in order to own the internet
*hacker voice* "Mrs May... we've done it. The internet. It's down."

[hungryfront]

The sad truth is that given mass immigration from Islamic countries, this sort of thing is going to become more common as security services have more and more muslims to track and monitor for terror and/or extremist activities.

It's the reason why we now have Police Forces who scarily resemble the military and the reason why historic English liberties have been thrown away such no detention without trial. But hey, at least we're more diverse. Whatever the benefit of being diverse is.
Just skip out the KKK or those Irish people that are Christians. No, of course terrorists are Muslims - all white people are perfect. They're white!

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[dbgtz]

The sad truth is that given mass immigration from Islamic countries, this sort of thing is going to become more common as security services have more and more muslims to track and monitor for terror and/or extremist activities.

It's the reason why we now have Police Forces who scarily resemble the military and the reason why historic English liberties have been thrown away such no detention without trial. But hey, at least we're more diverse. Whatever the benefit of being diverse is.

We've had mass surveillance for years that has prevented jack shit. Pretty sure those behind the Paris attacks some years back used SMS, not some "deep web" site.
Also, what's me going on habporn.org got anything to do with the government or preventing terrorism? Why should I only be allowed to see things which someone else deems appropriate? This is just authoritarian for the sake of being authoritarian and I can't believe you seem to be advocating this.


The worst thing about this is that it went to Buzzfeed first I mean what's next Lib Dems publishing a manifesto titled "16 Things You'll Never Believe We Want To Do To The Country!"

Is half of it even possible though? It reads a lot like someone high up assuming that all they have to do is change the settings in Internet Explorer 6 in order to own the internet

From what I have read, yes it is possible but by no means easy. I also doubt TM has any idea how anything tech related works.

[Charlie]

It all seems really ridiculous and I imagine it wouldn't be easy to put into place, if it ever is. People will find away around it, if someone is determined enough to commit to a terrorist attack then they'll find ways to do it without communicating over the internet. I don't see why people sharing details online or watching porn is even linked to that, I ddon't see why me going and watching busty babes 5 is anyone's business other than my own, or why it should be blocked or how it's even going to help them prevent terrorism.

[MKR&*42]

Christ she really is outdoing Thatcher isn't she.

[FlyingJesus]

Hide yo' wife, hide yo' internets

[xxMATTGxx]

Good luck - There is NO need for them to do this whatsoever. If you want to live like this then move to China and enjoy their great firewall.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I love it when people who support all kinds of anti-civil liberties legislation in other areas get upset and hysterical over the internet. "Force pubs to ban smoking, force bakers to bake cakes for gays, force over the top airport regulations - but DO NOT touch my precious internet!!" - as they often tell the rest of us, if you don't like it then don't use the internet!

I'd usually be the first to oppose more state interference but given nobody else seems to care about the general erosion of liberty in this country, and in fact will *argue* for those liberties to be abolished because that is their own personal preference in life - I just sit back now and watch happen to them and what matters to them be applied when they were perfectly happy for it to apply to others. :) Advocate growing state involvement in matters of conscience/freedom and eventually it'll come back to haunt you and your preferences, hobbies and interests. I have said this time and time again and here we are.

So yeah. Still voting Conservative.

[xxMATTGxx]

Once again someone comparing this to the ban of smoking... jesus fucking christ.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Once again someone comparing this to the ban of smoking... jesus fucking christ.

I compared it to other things aswell. I know you posted at 8am but rub that sleep out of your eyes.

As I was always told, don't like this? Then don't use the internet! :) :) :)

[hungryfront]

Yes but smoking harms other people. You can't discriminate against people because of their sexuality (I can't be bothered explaining why being homophobic is wrong to you). And you're the one always complaining about all Muslims being terrorists, Undertaker, so surely you're in favour of airport checks.

Or, do you only agree with things when they're useful to you?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[dbgtz]

I love it when people who support all kinds of anti-civil liberties legislation in other areas get upset and hysterical over the internet. "Force pubs to ban smoking, force bakers to bake cakes for gays, force over the top airport regulations - but DO NOT touch my precious internet!!" - as they often tell the rest of us, if you don't like it then don't use the internet!

I'd usually be the first to oppose more state interference but given nobody else seems to care about the general erosion of liberty in this country, and in fact will *argue* for those liberties to be abolished because that is their own personal preference in life - I just sit back now and watch happen to them and what matters to them be applied when they were perfectly happy for it to apply to others. :) Advocate growing state involvement in matters of conscience/freedom and eventually it'll come back to haunt you and your preferences, hobbies and interests. I have said this time and time again and here we are.

So yeah. Still voting Conservative.

So basically what you're saying is, you're as big of a hypocrite as some people you've just criticised.

For arguments sake, I will say I supported all of those 3 things you listed and I can tell you how very different it is.
A smoking ban in the actual pub building has no stopped smoking in general and there are still areas. A ban on websites will outright stop you gaining access to whatever content it is, some of which could be educational like in school when their shitty filters would block certain pages because they deemed it inappropriate when it was information on something perfectly legal to see.
On the forcing the bakers, well with what I believe is relatively new legislation, ISPs are now forced to store every individuals internet history which will ultimately come at cost to the consumer. One could also argue that the forcing the bakers was to quash some homophobic "riot", whereas what exactly is this internet legislation meant to do? It sure as hell won't stop terrorism.
On the airport regulations, well actually I can't really pretend to defend this as I believe it's pretty bad and intrusive, just in a different sense. It also just doesn't work. I should also add I didn't really support the bakers issue, but do on the smoking ban because science.

But let's look at the actual negatives of each issue beyond the idea of "freedom".
Smoking ban: Smoker can't smoke inside a building.
Bakers: Someone had to bake a cake for someone they didn't like.
Airport regulations: A perhaps overly intrusive pat down if you're unlucky, and also some dodgy pictures.
Conservative internet legislation: Attempting to weakening encryption in the name of anti-terrorism, not realising encryption is used everywhere including banking. Storing all data could mean sensitive data gets stolen and leaked. Restriction to educational material because it's deemed inappropriate. Damaging to tech based businesses, who do not advocate this in the slightest, which could ultimately drive them away. Conservatives, governments and arguably just companies which aren't technology focused have a poor record of good IT support. I could go on.

It is not the same.

[FlyingJesus]

As I was always told, don't like this? Then don't use the internet! :) :) :)

Even for you that's a shit argument lol

Don't like baking cakes for people? Don't be a baker!!!!
Don't like being checked for weapons? Don't go on planes!!!!
Don't like being in an environment without smoke? Sit in an oven!!!!

[-:Undertaker:-]

@hungryfront (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=128539); @dbgtz (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=28789); @FlyingJesus (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753);

Nope sorry. It's all about freedom, not freedom when it suits you. The State should be kept away from areas it really doesn't need to be in, like this and the examples I listed. The problem for you all though is that you're fine with having pub landlords lose their business because of your selfish preferences when you don't even own the business and you're fine with seeing Christian bakers get dragged through the courts for politely denying to bake a cake because they disagree with homosexuality. But touch your internet and read your Whatsapp!? Ohhhh the travesty! How we all must feel for you. Your internet is the most important thing ever isn't it. Screw the liberties of everybody else, but don't monitor your boring social media activity. Heaven forbid.

Truth is the public want more security so this time you're all going to be pushed aside like you pushed everyone else aside. There's no point complaining about your loss of civil liberties when you advocated it for others. Suck. It. Up. :)

[hungryfront]

hungryfront; dbgtz; FlyingJesus;

Nope sorry. It's all about freedom, not freedom when it suits you. You're fine with having pub landlords lose their business because of your selfish preferences when you don't even own the business and you're fine with seeing Christian bakers get dragged through the courts for politely denying to bake a cake because they disagree with homosexuality. But touch your internet and read your Whatsapp!? Ohhhh the travesty, how we all must feel for you.

Truth is the public want more security so this time you're all going to be pushed aside like you pushed everyone else aside. :)
How did we push everyone else aside? These hypothetical bakers pushed gay people aside.

Side note: there's no reason to disagree with homosexuality.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

How did we push everyone else aside? These hypothetical bakers pushed gay people aside.

Side note: there's no reason to disagree with homosexuality.

The whole point of living in a free society is that people are entitled to have the view that homosexuality is wrong. They own the business, not you. Therefore it is up to them who to serve, just as it is up to their customers whether to continue buying there.

Property rights are the basis of civil liberties. It is not up to the State to tell business owners who they can or cannot provide cakes for 'weddings' anymore than it is up to the State to monitor and file innocent people's internet activities.

You all advocated more state interference instead of taking the wise option regardless of your own personal opinions on each issue and now you're getting it. Invite the state to legislate on trivial issues and it'll eventually arrive at your door (literally) as it has.

[hungryfront]

The whole point of living in a free society is that people are entitled to have the view that homosexuality is wrong. They own the business, not you. Therefore it is up to them who to serve, just as it is up to their customers whether to continue buying there.

Property rights are the basis of civil liberties. It is not up to the State to tell business owners who they can or cannot provide cakes for 'weddings' anymore than it is up to the State to monitor and file innocent people's internet activities.

You all advocated more state interference instead of taking the wise option regardless of your own personal opinions on each issue and now you're getting it. Invite the state to legislate on trivial issues and it'll eventually arrive at your door (literally) as it has.
1) Cakes and internet privacy are very different.

2) Prove we advocated for that, instead of arguing from nowhere. By that I mean a quote, not some crap counterpoint.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[dbgtz]

@hungryfront (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=128539); @dbgtz (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=28789); @FlyingJesus (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753);

Nope sorry. It's all about freedom, not freedom when it suits you. The State should be kept away from areas it really doesn't need to be in, like this and the examples I listed. The problem for you all though is that you're fine with having pub landlords lose their business because of your selfish preferences when you don't even own the business and you're fine with seeing Christian bakers get dragged through the courts for politely denying to bake a cake because they disagree with homosexuality. But touch your internet and read your Whatsapp!? Ohhhh the travesty! How we all must feel for you. Your internet is the most important thing ever isn't it. Screw the liberties of everybody else, but don't monitor your boring social media activity. Heaven forbid.

Truth is the public want more security so this time you're all going to be pushed aside like you pushed everyone else aside. There's no point complaining about your loss of civil liberties when you advocated it for others. Suck. It. Up. :)

Did you actually read anything I said? I don't even mention social media, nor did I even advocate "freedom" as such. You've just argued against a point that was never made. Honestly how dense can you be?

[hungryfront]

Did you actually read anything I said? I don't even mention social media, nor did I even advocate "freedom" as such. You've just argued against a point that was never made. Honestly how dense can you be?
He does that.

[FlyingJesus]

you're fine with having pub landlords lose their business because of your selfish preferences when you don't even own the business and you're fine with seeing Christian bakers get dragged through the courts for politely denying to bake a cake because they disagree with homosexuality

Am I

[hungryfront]

You're fine with the baker's selfish preferences because they suit you though, right Undertaker?

Asking for a friend.

[-:Undertaker:-]

1) Cakes and internet privacy are very different.

They are to *you* because you place your internet use higher than a religious baker will place their religion. That's the point, that society (thankfully) isn't ordered around your preferences and my preferences. The less interference by the State in people's lives the better. It's when people such as yourself demand the action take action on things you do not *like* but which have no real need for state action that it becomes hypocrisy when you cry about your own civil liberties being infringed upon.

I do not like modern architecture and feel it has a negative impact on people's lives/society. But it's not my place to ban it.


2) Prove we advocated for that, instead of arguing from nowhere. By that I mean a quote, not some crap counterpoint.

You agree with me then that Christian bakers should have the *right* (not the same as being in agreement with it) not to bake cakes for gay 'weddings' and that pub landlords should be free to decide their own smoking policy in their own premises? If you do then cool.


Did you actually read anything I said? I don't even mention social media, nor did I even advocate "freedom" as such. You've just argued against a point that was never made. Honestly how dense can you be?

It's the principle of it. You've justified all that state legislation in the paragraphs you've posted just as someone can justify state legislation in regards to the internet & social media in terms of making us safe from terrorism. All of this legislation may well may us safer as naturally an all-powerful state will be able to take a very active role in society, but it takes away our freedoms and creates an overbearing state. But you can't argue for one and then dismiss the other because you don't like it.

How about on most issues asking ourselves is this really the place of government to do this? We'd be a lot better for it.


Am I

Not sure about you, my inkling/memory is you're actually lax with these things as I am. Let people get on.


You're fine with the baker's selfish preferences because they suit you though, right Undertaker?

Asking for a friend.

I have no idea how they suit me, I actually do not care whether a bakery caters for gay 'weddings' or not. If they do then fine, if they don't then fine but from a business POV that's less income. Point is, it isn't up to me, you or the government but the owner.

Being a non-smoker who has never even tried a cigarette I also don't care what a pub or bar decides in regard to smoking policy, but I do care that the right to decide something as meaningless as that is being taken away from a private property owner.

[hungryfront]

They are to *you* because you place your internet use higher than a religious baker will place their religion. That's the point, that society (thankfully) isn't ordered around your preferences and my preferences. The less interference by the State in people's lives the better. It's when people such as yourself demand the action take action on things you do not *like* but which have no real need for state action that it becomes hypocrisy when you cry about your own civil liberties being infringed upon.

I do not like modern architecture and feel it has a negative impact on people's lives/society. But it's not my place to ban it.



You agree with me then that Christian bakers should have the *right* (not the same as being in agreement with it) not to bake cakes for gay 'weddings' and that pub landlords should be free to decide their own smoking policy in their own premises? If you do then cool.



It's the principle of it. You've justified all that state legislation in the paragraphs you've posted just as someone can justify state legislation in regards to the internet & social media in terms of making us safe from terrorism. All of this legislation may well may us safer as naturally an all-powerful state will be able to take a very active role in society, but it takes away our freedoms and creates an overbearing state. But you can't argue for one and then dismiss the other because you don't like it.

How about on most issues asking ourselves is this really the place of government to do this? We'd be a lot better for it.



Not sure about you, my inkling/memory is you're actually lax with these things as I am. Let people get on.



I have no idea how they suit me, I actually do not care whether a bakery caters for gay 'weddings' or not. If they do then fine, if they don't then fine but from a business POV that's less income. Point is, it isn't up to me, you or the government but the owner.

Being a non-smoker who has never even tried a cigarette I also don't care what a pub or bar decides in regard to smoking policy, but I do care that the right to decide something as meaningless as that is being taken away from a private property owner.
The fact somebody is gay does not affect the baker. The fact the government's planning to monitor my internet has an effect on me.

Gay marriage is still marriage, I don't see the point of quotation marks.

The internet is real, not a book based loosely around a bloke from a few thousand years ago, written to dictate people's lives.

That's all, I think.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The fact somebody is gay does not affect the baker. The fact the government's planning to monitor my internet has an effect on me.

The fact the cake is being used in a gay 'wedding' does affect the baker if they're religious.


Gay marriage is still marriage, I don't see the point of quotation marks.

Hmm.


The internet is real, not a book based loosely around a bloke from a few thousand years ago, written to dictate people's lives.

That's all, I think.

To you it is. Try see it from somebody else's perspective.

[hungryfront]

The fact the cake is being used in a gay 'wedding' does affect the baker if they're religious.



Hmm.



To you it is. Try see it from somebody else's perspective.

Stop using "alternative facts" - the actual facts are that the baker doesn't have to go to a wedding, he's literally baking it. You're the one that said to suck it up and get on with it!

People base their lives far too much around the Bible. It was written in order to tell people how to live, and so the king could get money from church goers.

There's no reason to hate gay people unless you're unable to independently think, which frankly seems to be the case with you.

I'm surprised you're still even allowed on this forum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think we're straying off topic now but you should keep in mind that Biblical phrase,

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Disagreement with something doesn't always have to require state action. Exercise some liberalism.

[hungryfront]

I think we're straying off topic now but you should keep in mind that Biblical phrase,

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Disagreement with something doesn't always have to require state action. Exercise some liberalism.
If you'd like your marriage to be invalid, called a terrorist due to some other people's actions, be refused service because of your sexuality and generally be viewed as inferior, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you stop.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you'd like your marriage to be invalid, called a terrorist due to some other people's actions, be refused service because of your sexuality and generally be viewed as inferior, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you stop.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

If somebody didn't want to serve me I would actually be glad if they told me so I could take my money + custom elsewhere.

[dbgtz]

It's the principle of it. You've justified all that state legislation in the paragraphs you've posted just as someone can justify state legislation in regards to the internet & social media in terms of making us safe from terrorism. All of this legislation may well may us safer as naturally an all-powerful state will be able to take a very active role in society, but it takes away our freedoms and creates an overbearing state. But you can't argue for one and then dismiss the other because you don't like it.

How about on most issues asking ourselves is this really the place of government to do this? We'd be a lot better for it.


Except it doesn't make us safer in the slightest, that's the point I was trying to make. It opens individuals and businesses up to genuine risk and will not assist in counter-terrorism in the slightest. Stop being so fixated on the concept of freedom for just one minute and actually think about how terrible of an idea this is. This isn't even on the same level of a bloody smoking ban (oh no god forbid you have to smoke outside instead of inside which causes health issues).

[hungryfront]

If somebody didn't want to serve me I would actually be glad if they told me so I could take my money + custom elsewhere.
Must be KKK.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[peteyt]

Thought I'd add my opinion. I don't smoke but work on customer service and so sell them. The newest legislation is that they can no longer sell any cigarettes less than 20 or tobacco less than 30g and it all has to be sold in plain packaging yet it also has to be still hidden. Hiding them and removing the colour will do nothing those who smoke will continue to smoke and already know the risks. I've heard its to stop young people smoking yet alcohol isn't hidden or in plain packaging.

I actually also think smoke free pubs is a nice thing but it should be down to the venue. It's like cinemas only allowing food and drink purchased on the premises its understandable but would be stupid if the government suddenly got involved.

As for the internet thing i don't see it happening. It would make too much noise. The thing is if people want to do things online secretly they will. Trying to makd it harder will just force people to hide even better

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk