Chairman May to create new internet that's controlled and regulated by government - Big Sister is watching you

Independent article

Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.

"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.

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers' browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

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". That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists' messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else's messages, technology companies have warned.

The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn't published, the manifesto suggests.

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.

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.

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

But perhaps most unusually they would be forced to help controversial government schemes like its Prevent strategy, by promoting counter-extremist narratives.

"In harnessing the digital revolution, we must take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content", the manifesto claims in a section called 'the safest place to be online'.

The plans are in keeping with the Tories' commitment that the online world must be regulated as strongly as the offline one, and that the same rules should apply in both.

"Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline," the Conservatives' manifesto says, explaining this justification for a new level of regulation.

"It should be as unacceptable to bully online as it is in the playground, as difficult to groom a young child on the internet as it is in a community, as hard for children to access violent and degrading pornography online as it is in the high street, and as difficult to commit a crime digitally as it is physically."

The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy, like the one currently paid by gambling firms. Just like with gambling, that money will be used to pay for advertising schemes to tell people about the dangers of the internet, in particular being used to "support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms", according to the manifesto.

The Conservatives will also seek to regulate the kind of news that is posted online and how companies are paid for it. If elected, Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy" – and crack down on Facebook and Google to ensure that news companies get enough advertising money.

If internet companies refuse to comply with the rulings – a suggestion that some have already made about the powers in the Investigatory Powers Act – then there will be a strict and strong set of ways to punish them.

"We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law," the manifesto reads.

In laying out its plan for increased regulation, the Tories anticipate and reject potential criticism that such rules could put people at risk.

"While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide," the document reads. "Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits."
 
The simple idea behind it is harmonization of the laws between online and offline and has been talked about since about 2009 due to the fact UK law still clunks along using bits and pieces of "Misuse of Computers Act, 1986."

Y'know, before the invention of HTML and widespread internet use.

It's only really a concern if some lunatic like, I dunno, Seamus Milne or Corbyn got their hands on it.

For the most part is the people in the Donut trying to get ahead of the kebobs constantly evolving their communication methods. For the average user nothing will really be that different, or you might have to register as to which user is using the net at the time.

It'll be full of holes regardless.

Of course, much like the revenge porn law before it, there's going to be unexpected (and hilarious) repercussions.

Like spotty 16 and 17 year olds being charged with distribution of child pornography because they were sending around pictures of "That Stacy slag" who sent her boyfriend a tit pic.

Which is hilarious as those twats are now all registered sex offenders as a result.
 
Really glad the UK is free from onerous EU data protection laws now

as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

Unless WhatsApp consents to installing a backdoor in their app (which would render their security more or less meaningless) this is technically impossible.
 
Dumb fucks still think moslems go on murderous rampages because they read mean things on the Internet or watched a decapitation video.
Actually, they probably don't think that, but are hoping that people are dumb enough to believe it so they can pass more nutty authoritarian laws.
In the end all this will do is send chavs who complain about "fucking pakis" on Facebook to jail.
 
I love how their response to critics against government intervention is "We disagree."

Fuck you Theresa May, you authoritarian fuck.

Brits, this election is going to fuck us so hard in the arse that I can already feel May's girl penis penetrating my fucking imaginary cervix.
 
Unless WhatsApp consents to installing a backdoor in their app (which would render their security more or less meaningless) this is technically impossible.
1) Such backdoors most likely already exist.
2) I don't know how WhatsApp handles encryption and I'm not an expert on this stuff, but if I'm not mistaken, it shouldn't be that hard for WhatsApp to make the App send a copy of the decryption-key to a central WhatsApp server and enabling them to simply read the messages that are exchanged without any problems.

It's only really a concern if some lunatic like, I dunno, Seamus Milne or Corbyn got their hands on it.

For the most part is the people in the Donut trying to get ahead of the kebobs constantly evolving their communication methods. For the average user nothing will really be that different, or you might have to register as to which user is using the net at the time.

It'll be full of holes regardless.
:optimistic:

I love how their response to critics against government intervention is "We disagree."

Fuck you Theresa May, you authoritarian fuck.

Brits, this election is going to fuck us so hard in the arse that I can already feel May's girl penis penetrating my fucking imaginary cervix.
Whatever it is they are trying to do, it reads dreadful and it seems this was thought out by a bunch of old farts that have absolutely no idea how the internet works or how such a decision would impact people who use it daily and their only concern was putting a stop to a powerful communication technology that scares them.
 
Whatever it is they are trying to do, it reads dreadful and it seems this was thought out by a bunch of old farts that have absolutely no idea how the internet works or how such a decision would impact people who use it daily and their only concern was putting a stop to a powerful communication technology that scares them.

May might be a Vicar's daughter, but she needs to stop moralising like one. All this is because 'Muh Porn' and how its corrupting the youth and needs to be stopped NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!

And its all well and good saying that this will not be abused by this government, but one day our government might not be so friendly. Do we really want them to have this much power, especially considering what they have already?
 
1) Such backdoors most likely already exist.

There is one weakness that I'm aware of, but it's a design decision to prioritse usability over security, not a backdoor per se.

2) I don't know how WhatsApp handles encryption and I'm not an expert on this stuff, but if I'm not mistaken, it shouldn't be that hard for WhatsApp to make the App send a copy of the decryption-key to a central WhatsApp server and enabling them to simply read the messages that are exchanged without any problems.

The WhatsApp server only stores the user's public key; their private keys are generated for each separate session/message, and are created and stored on the user's device. The messages themselves use 256-bit encryption, and by my understanding it's effectively impossible for anyone, including Facebook themselves, to break.

The US DoJ has also been pushing for backdoors to circumvent encryption, against WhatsApp and Apple. When regulators from their two biggest markets are calling for it, I'm sure these companies will take the prudent way out and cave to their demands.
 
Whatever it is they are trying to do, it reads dreadful and it seems this was thought out by a bunch of old farts that have absolutely no idea how the internet works or how such a decision would impact people who use it daily and their only concern was putting a stop to a powerful communication technology that scares them.
Welcome to the next twenty years of world politics!
 
Idiots. All they'll do is render themselves completely non-competitive as anyone who actually uses the Internet will circumvent their idiotic nanny state bullshit, probably by using providers in states that don't give a fuck about pussified limey cunts and their pearl-clutching and attacks of the vapors at seeing a mean word.
 
Great, now your Internet will be like your streets britain, a camera every 5 feet.
I honestly can understand why people want to cut down on the absolute shit fest of stuff on the internet.
I just worry that the will just turn it around as another tool of control on everyday people just trying to watch their porn and netflix in peace.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RomanesEuntDomus
Can y'all still get usenet over there?
 
Can y'all still get usenet over there?

It still exists, sort of, although most of the bandwidth is consumed with inefficient, dumb use of it to transmit pirated shit and illegal content.

Some text groups continue to exist, although most have been overwhelmed with spam and posts from terminally insane people who only post there because it's the only place they can't be kicked off.

There might be some lolcows there but it's just too depressing even to look at any more.
 
The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.

Why does the UK hate pornography so much?

This is the same nation that deemed facesitting to be "life-endangering."
 
Back