Therese May's internet idea

[Belle_Vue]

Apparently playing to create her own interned and watching what everyone is doing

[Geoff Blakesley]

come again

[drfchound]

Is the new internet idea to get everyone to speak in code so we have to work out what is being said?

[ballysbackin]

Well Aunty Theresa sent me a letter personally signed yesterday asking me to vote for Tories at the election. I wonder how they knew who I voted for last time too - anonymous vote my back side, it cannot be whilst your bar  code thingy is on it and also on their records.

[drfchound]

I don't think it was personally signed mate, i got one as well so i guess there will be a few thousand of them.
Nice to know she cares though, not like that Corbyn chap who hasn't written to me.

[ballysbackin]

Yes, signed in blue ink so not a photo copy.

[drfchound]

It is a clever way of printing mate, that is all.
Easy to do nowadays

[DonnyOsmond]

A thread about the prime minister wanting to control what we post online to make the nation more like China or even North Korea but then you guys are considering voting for someone because they sent you a mass produced letter? This country is crazy.

[drfchound]

Fcuk me, who said that anyone was considering voting for Mrs May because she sent a letter out?

However, the suggested new rules have much sense in them if it reduces the terrorist risk and reduces the amount of grooming of kids and child pornography that is going on in secret.

Is that a bad thing?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Fcuk me, who said that anyone was considering voting for Mrs May because she sent a letter out?

However, the suggested new rules have much sense in them if it reduces the terrorist risk and reduces the amount of grooming of kids and child pornography that is going on in secret.

Is that a bad thing?

What suggested new rules? It's all broad brush intentions, not specifics. It looks like a blank cheque to me - the last thing you ever want to give to a government when it comes to personal liberty.

[DonnyOsmond]

Bad people will just use VPN's to hide what they view anyway. What I don't get is the need to control what people see/post? If someone wants to view pornography let them as long as it's not some torture shit. This will stop the most minor of crimes and just restrict what people see/do on the Internet. It won't stop what's on the dark web.

[drfchound]

I was talking about CHILD pornography and the perverts that use the internet for viewing and sharing that.
I was also talking about making it difficult for terrorists to share information.
If Corbin had had come up with this suggestion I suppose it would have been an amazing idea.

[DonnyOsmond]

I was talking about CHILD pornography and the perverts that use the internet for viewing and sharing that.
I was also talking about making it difficult for terrorists to share information.
If Corbin had had come up with this suggestion I suppose it would have been an amazing idea.

And like I said bad people (pedophiles, terrorists) will more than likely use VPN's and find what they want on the dark web which they can't track. No one's gonna go onto Google and search for "child porn" looking for that.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I was talking about CHILD pornography and the perverts that use the internet for viewing and sharing that.
I was also talking about making it difficult for terrorists to share information.
If Corbin had had come up with this suggestion I suppose it would have been an amazing idea.

So in order to satisfy what you're talking about, you're happy to accept giving unknown powers to unknown persons to use unknown methods against whatever unknown sites they deem - rather vaguely - to be 'other sources of harm'?

As for Corbyn, it wouldn't surprise me if he thinks a cyber attack is something that happens on Doctor Who.

[Mr1Croft]

Whilst there is the arguement of counter terrorism and monitoring criminal activity, like the Snoopers charter before it, it is one of the most invasive and intrusive proposals of legislation of any 'free' democratic nation.

It points to moving to a police state when it comes to freedom of expression and speech.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Given the Tory party as it is, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they'd want state control of the internet so that they could tax it.

[Belle_Vue]

All the true bad people will find ways around this.

[drfchound]

Ok, so let's try nothing at all and just let the criminal do what they want anyway.
You know best.

[DonnyOsmond]

Not at all what anyone has said x

[Glyn_Wigley]

Not at all what anyone has said x

Of course it isn't, but deflection away from the issue and attacking the other person is what we come to expect when somebody dares to disagree.

[RedJ]

It's a "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" type of thing, I get what hound is saying. But that doesn't mean they should be able to look at everything we do online. Overstepping the mark for me.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It's a "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" type of thing, I get what hound is saying. But that doesn't mean they should be able to look at everything we do online. Overstepping the mark for me.

That's not what I'm getting at either - according to their manifesto we'd be giving undefined powers to do undefined things without any defined checks and balances regarding anything that an undefined person or body decides (without any defined criteria) they want.

I have no problem with some sort of safeguard being put in place that has been properly detailed and set out, and the use of which is properly monitored and accountable for; but blindly giving any government that sort of power on any subject is foolish.

[RedJ]

That's pretty much what I was trying to say with my second sentence, though you've worded it much better...

[MachoMadness]

Amazing how easy it is to get people to vote away their rights. Add a dash of "think of the children" hysteria to your usual swivel-eyed nonsense and that's it.

As Glyn says, this is worded far too vaguely. If you think this isn't a step towards the end of net neutrality, in favour of big business and media conglomerates who can then control what information we're exposed to, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Just giving the government a blank cheque so they can regulate what information you receive is f**king terrifying to me. That anyone thinks otherwise is even more so.

[drfchound]

It's a "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" type of thing, I get what hound is saying. But that doesn't mean they should be able to look at everything we do online. Overstepping the mark for me.

That's not what I'm getting at either - according to their manifesto we'd be giving undefined powers to do undefined things without any defined checks and balances regarding anything that an undefined person or body decides (without any defined criteria) they want.

I have no problem with some sort of safeguard being put in place that has been properly detailed and set out, and the use of which is properly monitored and accountable for; but blindly giving any government that sort of power on any subject is foolish.

I don't think for one minute that it will be as one sided as you are suggesting.
Any suggested changes would have to go through Parliament and be justified.
Glyn, you have made a recent habit of jumping on my posts and having a go at what I say, adding your version of events to twist my words into something I am not saying.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It's a "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" type of thing, I get what hound is saying. But that doesn't mean they should be able to look at everything we do online. Overstepping the mark for me.

That's not what I'm getting at either - according to their manifesto we'd be giving undefined powers to do undefined things without any defined checks and balances regarding anything that an undefined person or body decides (without any defined criteria) they want.

I have no problem with some sort of safeguard being put in place that has been properly detailed and set out, and the use of which is properly monitored and accountable for; but blindly giving any government that sort of power on any subject is foolish.

I don't think for one minute that it will be as one sided as you are suggesting.
Any suggested changes would have to go through Parliament and be justified.
Glyn, you have made a recent habit of jumping on my posts and having a go at what I say, adding your version of events to twist my words into something I am not saying.

Where have I done that in this thread?

[drfchound]

Who said anything about just this thread?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Who said anything about just this thread?

Well, it must include this thread otherwise it's a bloody stupid 'comeback' to post in this thread. So go on, tell me and everybody else where I've done it in this thread. Or is it, as I suspect, merely another desperate attempt to have a go at me personally because you can't think of anything constructive to say about the subject being discussed.

[drfchound]

Are you real?
For the purists:
I wrote that you have a habit of jumping on my posts.
You responded by asking "Where have i done that in this thread".
I said that it wasn't JUST in this thread.
I didn't say sit didn't include this thread.

Now who has responded with a stupid answer ?
FFS. I bet you argue with yourself when there is no one else to have a go at.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Then why complain about me supposedly jumping on your posts in reply to something I've written in this thread if it doesn't apply to this thread?? Unless you're just trying to evade the issue by having a go at someone else, yet again!

OK then, give us all an example from somewhere else!!

Was it me twisting your words when you said the Whigs turned into the Labour party?

Or that the National Government wasn't a coalition?