Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

[SecularMotion]

Source: Independent

New international agreements should be introduced to regulate the internet in the light of the London Bridge terror attack, Theresa May has said.

The Prime Minister said introducing new rules for cyberspace would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and that technology firms were not currently doing enough.

The Prime Minister made the comments outside Downing Street on Sunday morning in the aftermath of the van and knife attack that saw seven people killed and dozens injured.

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-internet-regulated-london-bridge-terror-attack-google-facebook-whatsapp-borough-security-a7771896.html

[pangaia]

1. You know what Theresa May?

Screw you........... figuratively speaking, of course...

[billh58]

47. I'll second that.

Just like a neoconservative right-wing buttwipe to blame the Internet for spawning and supporting terrorism. From what I can determine Saudi Arabia has that honor, and continues to support terrorist organizations. How about addressing the problem where it begins?

[MedusaX]

2. FFS..Now Donnie has a playmate -& acceptance & diversity & independent thinking are dangerous?

Look out....
Martial Law &
Incarceration for perceived expressions of extreme views & acts arbitrarily deemed seditious

Will soon be debuting in your local community!

[deurbano]

6. What's dangerous is having the two of them in charge at the same time.

[Towlie]

13. Maybe misogyny and ideology will rip Trump in half in a tug of war.

[lunasun]

3. Huh?

[Efilroft Sul]

4. An overreach of power as a knee-jerk reaction to a handful of extremists.

"We need these regulations to keep you all 'safe.'"

This is how free societies die. Tyranny is sold as a preferable option to the boogieman.

[ucrdem]

5. The campaigns are suspended

and I don't think this is going to help.

[Ligyron]

7. A sentiment soon to be echoed by Trumpy.

"Yes, we must protect you from those we deem dangerous".

[hrmjustin]

8. She looks like a fish out of water.

May is no leader.

[SergeStorms]

45. Exactly why.......

she and Donny Dumbass get along so well. This reminds me of Reagan and Thatcher........on steroids.

[Solly Mack]

9. Transcript full speech

It will only be defeated when we turn people's minds away from this violence and make them understand that our values - pluralistic British values - are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate.

Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide.

We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.



SMH

[ucrdem]

10. The irony is that the 3-letter agencies are the ones preventing this kind of regulation.

Seems they need it unregulated to help them "catch" the bad guys.

[yallerdawg]

11. We can go 'mental' on a political satirist/comedian for saying a 'bad word' but...

promoting and advocating deranged, psychotic hate crimes on the internet should be protected?

[angrychair]

17. Please Elaborate

I don't want to misunderstand your point.

[cstanleytech]

12. This kind of reaction is one of the ones the terrorist was counting on as a

society that reacts with draconian laws when something like this happens is a society that makes it easier to recruit new members for the terrorists.

[Mosby]

33. and the children of their victims will be recruited

Into western fascist movements.

Every time an Islamic terrorist attack happens in Europe, more European kids become radicalized and hate filled.

It's kind of a win-win for Islamic or western fascists.

[C_U_L8R]

14. Oh geez... what will the terrorists do then???

Use phones?

It seems every village has an idiot
and every nation has its Trump.

[They_Live]

23. Handwritten notes

are the wave of the future. Count on it!

[bettyellen]

29. Couriers! Both Bin Laden and Trump are said to favor them.

[Towlie]

15. This is The Shock Doctrine in action - using shock and disorientation to push your agenda.

... even though there's no clear relationship.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

[diva77]

25. THIS +1000 Either fabricate a crisis or exploit one for the agenda

This is a continuation of Dubya's agenda -

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/bushlegacy

[Freethinker65]

32. Yep.

And IF the terrorists primarily use the internet (even the dark web) and social media, wouldn't it be easier to monitor "chatter" if they can continue. Just devote more manpower and resources to monitoring I T.

The U.S. was "shock doctrined" into passing the Patriot Act. Information Technology privacy has already been compromised. Too bad the $$$$$ and skill devoted to hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails was not used against those really out to harm civilization.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. The Internet is very skilled at routing around censorship. Unless you want to become North Korea.

Attempts at this kind of regulation will inconvenience citizens more than terrorists or radicals.

Kind of like porn censorship prevents mothers in need from getting help with breast milk.

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. I think that is the ultimate goal by the corporocracy

And yeah, if all countries hold some conference and decide together to 'regulate' content aka North Korea, it could very well be done, on a global scale. Turn the internet into something similar to our "public airwaves" TV setup. It would be privatized completely and run by a handful of corporations who decide which sites have priority and wider bandwidth (faster) and which don't (DU). And if you thought the internet was commercialized now....wait until it is "regulated".

I'm not saying more could be done, or even that some form of regulation against hate speech and blatant terrorist recruitment could be done, but its such a slippery slope. Well intentioned but it raises the possibility that future leaders could use that ability to censor political foes and journalists as well.

[WinkyDink]

28. Yep. As it is, Trump is preventing us from getting information from agencies.

[Jimbo101]

18. "Things" have been in the works since before the attacks -

Kind of strange how those things always work out - timing-wise

[angrychair]

20. Fascism

For those confused why some would feel this way is that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

You do not have to browse through the "dystopian society" themed fiction section to see this situation play itself out to the most likely conclusion.

People like republican45 and republicans would shutdown a site like DU in a hummingbird's heartbeat under the guise of "protecting the public interest" and the only "good" websites would be breitbart and Hannity.

Extremists websites and chat rooms are also a major tool for law enforcement and intelligence services to identify, track and monitor terrorist and their threats.

the simple fact is that a significant portion of these large terror organizations have had their command and control all but destroyed.
Large top down, managed, organizations don't exist anymore. They are managed by country or region of a country in some rare cases. But those leaders move around constantly and are always in fear of being attacked.
We have killed a lot of their founding and iconic leaders and made it very hard to move large sums of money around.
They are back to being loosely aligned independent cells that get little to no direction from the parent organization.
This attack is likely spun up by a small cell that was inspired by the other attack. It was done with a vehicle and knives. Not exactly a well-funded and organized group.
The problem is that these small cells are harder to find and weed out until they do something.

Creating more Internet laws won't stop these kind of attacks because they don't need the Internet.

[bresue]

21. Outsource it to the Russians....

they sure helped the GOP in the election. I am sure there hackers could do some monitoring!

[defacto7]

22. The proverbial can of worms...

Who decides?
How far does it go?
Does it stop exactly on that one constantly moving target of terrorism or does it end in serving the political fad of the moment?

The answer is found in human nature and thousands of years of political history.

[Lamonte]

24. Cell?

I will bet more terroriism is planned on Cell Phones than anywhere else.

[WinkyDink]

26. Extremely, EXTREMELY bad idea.

[appleannie1943]

27. Nothing like making one of their goals easier to attain.

[mhw]

30. Congrats. What Russia did to destabilize the USA he'll also do to you UK.

Putin hates Democracy.

[orangecrush]

31. Theresa May...

Please shut up.

[KWR65]

34. Never fail to use a tragedy to advance a plan for government control and censorship of the Internet

Another day and another reason to control speech on the Internet.

[lapfog_1]

35. Not possible.

The only way to isolate the population in the UK would be to completely cut off all communication over the internet.

Let me show you...

?_ga=1.35736738.306910221.1496606131

and this one

?_ga=1.9635895.306910221.1496606131

The second image has an encrypted secret message embedded in it.

Good luck to our cyber security forces in looking at ALL images linked to on the internet and DETERMINING that the image was altered (original source images would be the ones I used if I was doing secret things, thereby making tools like tineye inoperable). I would simply post my selfies and travel images.

The tools to create this are readily available and free.

[msongs]

46. broken links are secret code?

[lapfog_1]

48. sorry, try again

[bucolic_frolic]

36. How would you even do that?

Regulate communication. The government hires outside companies to do IT.
Stopping communication between people is very difficult. They'll move offline,
to cell phones, or other means.

[bora13]

37. already begun

and it starts with offloading the first responders onto their own network. Already happening.

[Denzil_DC]

38. May was Home Secretary (i/c UK security) from 2010 till she fell into the post of Prime Minister.

Her approach led to what's happened this last week or so, and she's the most powerful politician in the UK.

She failed, she doesn't have any answers, so why listen to her now?

[Oneironaut]

39. Uh... No it wouldn't. Do they think ISIS operates on Facebook?

Though I do love the typical(ly clueless) hits like...

- Every company should give us their encryption key / key algorithm.

- Apple and Facebook need to put a back door in that the government can use! 'Cuz everyone uses just those two things, right?

- Ban all of the types of encryption that can't be hacked, even for banks. Edit -should be "Can't be hacked yet..."

- There is no real privacy anyways, so what's the problem with going a little further?

Senators and Representatives are basically the "CSI: Miami" version of computer security. Their attempts to try and recommend / justify the above suggestions are rather cringey. It's like humorously suggesting that all front door locks should be simple door latches so that the police can break in whenever they want to make you safer.

[brooklynite]

41. Do you know that to be false?

[Oneironaut]

42. The simple solution is using the dark web. Remember: ISPs already do their part in

trying to fight against terrorists, child porn, drug business, etc. it's not as simple as politicians claim it is.

ISIS aren't just a bunch of dopes shooting off AK-47s. They have a hidden online presence. If it were easy enough to stamp them out, they wouldn't be so successful. What I meant was, ISIS doesn't operate exclusively on Facebook, Twitter, etc. That's just their public face.

The internet is an unfathomably huge network of websites. Most of them are on the dark web.

[brooklynite]

40. Bear in mind, the UK doesn't have a First Amendment...

...and has always had restrictions on communications and reporting.

[moonseller66]

43. Regulate what?

Yeah! Let's regulate or monitor/censor the net but continue selling arms to whoever has the most money. Plus let's not regulate guns or ammo cause...freedom! Even though that might just be a better starting point.

Sarcasm in case anyone is concerned.

[Egnever]

44. It's awesome when people who can barely check their email.

Declare what should happen to the internet.

[Kablooie]

49. I can understand where she's coming from.

The internet is one of the main methods that young Muslims are radicalized.
It is done in public chat rooms and web sites.
I would think that public forums would be fair game for monitoring.

But I know they probably want backdoors, ways to crack encryption, and massive undiscriminating monitoring of private conversations which would be very problematic, to say the least.

Certainly I would think anyone would prefer that law enforcement learn about planned attacks before they occur so they could be stopped before transpiring.

But to do this without decreasing the safety and privacy of ordinary citizens is a tough problem to crack.

[rizlaplus]

50. Howsabout regulating the arms trade

Haven't you just signed a multi-£bn arms deal with the exporters of extremist ideology? Shouldn't that be a priority rather than this interweb thingy?

[democratisphere]

51. BS. Why does everyone have to give up their privacy and freedom

for three thugs with knives. Legalize the ability to carry tasers, pepper spray and the like for personal protection of self and others.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. The people of the UK

Need to step up here.

We still have the 1st Amendment. Crazy King George couldn't shut down the the printing presses. Taking direction from our former ruling country on Freedom of Speech issues at minimum would be in poor form.

Let the UK be the UK and let the U.S. be the U.S..