Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
from the not-very-subtle dept
It’s no secret that Theresa May is no fan of the internet and will use basically any excuse at all to push for greater censorship on the internet. Going back to the time when she was Home Secretary, she was already slamming the internet as being responsible for ISIS and promising to censor it. Since she’s become Prime Minister it’s only gotten worse. As part of her manifesto for the general election coming up later this week, a key part of her party’s promise was to censor the internet. And May and her friends seem to leave no tragedy unexploited. With the attack in Manchester a couple weeks back, she used it as an excuse to push the plan to kill end-to-end encryption. And with this weekend’s London Bridge attack, she immediately blamed the internet and promised more censorship:
“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,? Ms May said.
?We need to work with allies democratic governments to reach international agreements to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.”
Of course, there’s no indication that the internet had anything to do with the attack at all. Indeed, another news report claimed that one of the suspects had to ask a neighbor where he could rent the van that was later used in the attack, leading some to point out that if someone can’t even Google that kind of info… the internet might not be to blame here:
Dude couldn't use Google, but yeah internet safe spaces fault. https://t.co/6sEZbLfcl6
— Aidan Walsh (@aidan_walsh) June 4, 2017
Sky Sources: one of the suspects asked a neighbour where he could hire a van prior to the London Bridge attack
— Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) June 4, 2017
Or this perfectly snarky response to blaming the internet for a real world stabbing attack:
I'm confused, is London Bridge a website in cyberspace that had a cyberattack pic.twitter.com/svzCGMrNBC
— Mustafa Al-Bassam (@musalbas) June 4, 2017
In response to all of this nonsense, Charles Arthur has an excellent column at the Guardian pointing out that responding to all this by censoring the internet not only won’t help, it will almost certainly make things worse.
The problem is this: things can be done, but they open a Pandora?s box. The British government could insist that the identities of people who search for certain terror-related words on Google or YouTube or Facebook be handed over. But then what?s to stop the Turkish government, or embassy, demanding the same about Kurdish people searching on ?dangerous? topics? The home secretary, Amber Rudd, could insist that WhatsApp hand over the names and details of every communicant with a phone number. But then what happens in Iran or Saudi Arabia? What?s the calculus of our freedom against others??
Similarly, May and Rudd and every home secretary back to Jack Straw keep being told that encryption (as used in WhatsApp particularly) can?t be repealed, because it?s mathematics, not material. People can write apps whose messages can?t be read in transit, only at the ends. Ban WhatsApp, and would-be terrorists will find another app, as will those struggling against dictators.
Blaming the internet for some angry individuals committing violent acts isn’t just dumb and nonsensical, it’s counterproductive and will almost certainly do more harm than good. It’s a way for May and her colleagues to try to pin the blame on “something else” rather than to admit that they don’t appear to have a real strategy or plan for almost anything. Blame goes a long way, but blaming a tool that people use basically everyday for all sorts of useful reasons, seems really short-sighted.
Filed Under: censorship, internet, london bridge, moral panic, terrorism, theresa may, uk
Comments on “Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It”
“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,”
Really? Does the Internet allow for pro-democracy, good things to spread as well? How much of the traffic is devoted to promoting perceived bad things versus good things? And how much of that traffic you consider bad just because you don’t like it?
“We need to work with allies democratic governments to reach international agreements to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.”
What would be classified as terrorism to you? Some people fed up by repeatedly pointing government abuse that start breaking things to be heard? People planning massive protests against some governmental action or policy? Journalists helping people leak government secrets that are evidence of sever abuse?
We could be complacent on the old lady for not knowing the internet but we all know this isn’t about solving the problem. Terrorism is an awesome scapegoat to justify inserting authoritarian measures. The UK is using it like crazy to implement Orwell/V officially.
Re: Re:
I watched V for Vendetta yesterday – that films “dystopian” future is looking more and more like present reality!
Re: Re:
hey it worked for Erdogan, surely it will work for May as well, right?
Re: Re:
When governments begin discussing “BETTER NET SECURITY”, “FOUR POINTS” are usually missed! And these are:… evil people want ACCESS, and evil people want PRIVACY; and non-evil people want ACCESS, and non-evil people want PRIVACY! Conclusion:… SECURITY ON THE NET, IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT PRIVACY VERSUS ACCESS!… I-T-‘-S A-B-O-U-T F-O-U-R S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y E-L-E-M-E-N-T-S (AND WHICH INCLUDES, HIGH-LEVEL AND LOW-LEVEL LANGUAGE ICT ACCESS, AND CRYPTANALYSIS/ WHITE HAT HACKING FOR THE GOOD GUYS!… AND AGAINST THE BAD GUYS!… AND, HIGH-LEVEL AND LOW-LEVEL LANGUAGE ICT ACCESS, AND CRYPTOGRAPHY/ STEGANOGRAPHIC ENCRYPTION FOR THE GOOD GUYS!… AND AGAINST THE BAD GUYS!)!
.
NON-EVIL PEOPLE NEED BOTH ACCESS AND PRIVACY!… AND EVIL PEOPLE SHOULDN’T HAVE EITHER! BUT, IF YOU DENY THE WRONG PEOPLE ACCESS AND PRIVACY (I.E., NON-EVIL PEOPLE!), AND ALLOW THE WRONG PEOPLE ACCESS AND PRIVACY (I.E., EVIL PEOPLE!), YOU HARM SECURITY!… AND, IN THE CASE OF NON-EVIL PEOPLE, ACCESS AND PRIVACY DENIALS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT ON MANY OTHER DIGITAL… AND HUMAN!… RIGHTS! AND IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHICH IS WHICH (I.E., WHO IS EVIL, AND WHO IS NOT!)… WELL… YOU D*MN WELL SHOULD FIGURE IT OUT!
.
Please!… no emails!
Re: Re:
To May and her ilk, democracy IS extremism.
The point of view...
From the “old guard” –
In the “Good Old Days” ™ we controlled the media, and therefore controlled the information the proletariat was allowed to know.
This damn internet let’s them know the TRUTH!!! We can’t allow that.
This looks like a good excuse to stamp it out.
[ good luck with that!!! ]
_It’s a way for May and her colleagues to try to pin the blame on “something else” rather than to admit that they don’t appear to have a real strategy or plan for almost anything._
The thing of it is: _Shit Happens._ There is no way to stop everything, particularly something as simple as people with cars and knives. Pretending that you can stop it, or find out in advance, by taking more powers and removing rights, is beyond absurd. _It has never worked yet._ One does not even have to think this out critically, we have a wealth of history on these things. We do know all the downsides already, as well.
Some people are just determined to do _something_ (or claim to want to do something as an excuse), no matter how ineffectual or counterproductive.
I wonder where “wouldn’t you protect your family” guy is today.
Re: Re:
Oh for Pete’s sake. I forgot to check the box again. Could we not at least have a Use Markdown pref along with the other lovely prefs in our account settings?
Re: Re: Re:
They were going to, but May regulated it, so now they can’t. At least your comments aren’t a safe space for terrorists!
Re: Re:
That. Anybody can rent a car or even better, steal one and go in a Carmageddon-stylr rampage. Screwing everybody else with non-related measures is either being stupid or using terror as an excuse to implement censorship and surveillance. None of them speak good of the one pushing for such measures.
Re: Re:
It’s an appeal to the logic of panic. Bad things have happened. We must do something. THIS is something. Thus we must do it, or bad things will keep happening.
It’s an appealing line of thinking when you’re hurt and afraid. It’s also one of the easiest ones to hijack if you want to trick someone into doing something you already wanted them to do. Instant public mandate: just add tragedy.
ooohhhhh
“We need to work with allies democratic governments to reach international agreements to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.”
Something tells me people are not going to like this kind of “regulation”.
If it’s good for the telco’s, its good for the internet. Regulation will become the noose in which you hang yourselves!
I am cooking up some fresh popcorn right now folks. I do believe it is time to dig in! Where is my butter?
Re: ooohhhhh
Probably the same place you pull everything else out of.
Re: Re: ooohhhhh
Your Ass huh?
No thanks, prefer to less used place.
Re: ooohhhhh
Yeah, people are not going to like the regulation. Do you have a point? Do you want to propose how the fact that they don’t like it and never asked for this regulation is their fault?
Re: Re: ooohhhhh
How often can you give a baby candy before they start demanding it and making you miserable until you give in to them, or show them who is boss?
People have been foolishly asking for government to control every aspect of their lives so they can escape personal responsibility. What did you think was going to happen?
The History is pretty clear. You don’t want to take responsibility? Fine, the government will do it for you, and take your liberty right along with that responsibility.
Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh
Do you have more than the “it’s all your fault” arguement today? No, well than please drone on some more, you tedious fuck.
Re: Re: Re:2 ooohhhhh
Until you learn the lesson that citizens cannot avoid responsibility you are not capable of any additional lessons.
Like an addict, you must first recognize that you have a problem before we can begin to resolve it.
I have been telling you folks that every nation gets the government it deserves and recent even Obama said much the same.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150
When the weight of government is crushing you… the first person to blame is the one in the mirror. My current and only job is to get you to understand that. I cannot fight the masses of ignorants, I have to attempt to educate them first.
Trump got elected for a reason, and you are part of that reason!
Re: Re: Re:3 ooohhhhh
So… your solution for citizens in other countries who failed to influence politics in other countries, which they have never been to in their lifetime, is to put faith in a lunatic with a god complex whose sole purpose in existence is to scream at them about how he thinks they’re all fuck ups.
How inspiring, altruistic and productive of you. Do you have a pair of shoes that need licking? Should I prepare virgin asses for you to enjoy before you grace us with your sacred condemnation?
Re: Re: Re:4 ooohhhhh
Not sure you a playing with a full deck of cards.
I advocate for liberty where people see to their own defense and take responsibility for the actions of their government, instead of giving their liberty away to it in a vain attempt at security. This is the exact opposite of what you stated you loony tune.
Go lick your own shoes, or likely in your case… toads.
Re: Re: Re:5 ooohhhhh
This must be the regulations are bad guy, not the every nation guy – I thought they were the same person for a while, now I’m not sure.
Re: Re: Re:6 ooohhhhh
They are.
His shtick is to blame everyone else for regulations, government, what have you. Because Trump got into power because the whole planet let him, obviously, so the whole planet is at fault! …Except him, of course.
Re: Re: Re:7 ooohhhhh
No, each nation is responsible for their own country. Different cultures, different problems.
But hey, go ahead and keep lying about other people to misrepresent them. Lying and ignorance is your forte it seems. You must be a politician!
Re: Re: Re:8 ooohhhhh
Except no, that’s not what you said.
"There are a large number of people in other nations that have an indirect impacts on other nations of the world including the USA. Are they big? Usually not, but on rare occasion something they want does gain traction and people run with it.
So yea, we are not living in a closed environment despite what a lot of people ignorantly believe. It normally follows the numbers, which is why big businesses love you pro regulation guys. You are just busy giving it ALL away for nothing in return."
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20170531/11283837488/netflix-admits-it-doesnt-really-care-about-net-neutrality-now-that-big.shtml#c669
So each nation is responsible for their own country… up to the point where you decide that blaming citizens of other countries, like in the above quote, makes you look like the intelligent know-it-all compared to the rest of us Earthling schmucks. Hell, those of us on the other side of the globe could have our shit together right now, but because a few politicians around the Atlantic Ocean are fuckwits, you claim the prerogative to blame everyone else but yourself, regardless of what culture we’re from.
Enjoy shouting yourself hoarse.
Re: Re: Re:9 ooohhhhh
wow dood, you definitely need a lesson in comprehension.
Each nation is responsible for their own country.
Yes other people from other nations can have an impact but that does not REMOVE the responsibility.
If I make money, it is assumed that I am responsible for paying taxes or supporting my family with it. That does not change because some other nation is getting involved with that.
I only look like an intelligent know it all because I have figured a few things out. The rest of you could be the same way if you wanted to apply yourselves, but instead you need to a part of the mainstream parrots.
Think for yourself, stop letting everyone else do it for you. If you give up your liberty for safety, then you wind up on getting either as a result. This is “regulation” in a nutshell, lost liberty in the attempt to secure ourselves from nasty businesses.
Re: Re: Re:10 ooohhhhh
When did I say that? The point is, it doesn’t matter to you what side of the planet we’re from. Precisely because as you said, what someone in another country does also has an impact, it gives you the right to mock people of one country for what happens in another country, regardless of their effect or lack thereof thousands of miles away – as you did in the linked example. Nobody said foreigners suddenly removes the responsibility you cited.
Seriously, try to think past your own self-imposed self-importance for a change. “Stop letting governments think for you – let me do it instead, and I think you’re all losers!” Genius move there, guy.
Re: Re: Re:3 ooohhhhh
That whole comment was strange. It’s not clear to me that this anonymous coward knows what he/she is talking about. It could be just cliches and rhetorical flourishes.
Some advice. Avoid, if you can, "poking" or judging people directly. Instead focus on actions, behavior, condition, etc.
Hmm. OK? If being an "adult" has any meaning then adulthood has responsibilities. One can say: as adults we are, at best, not particularly guilty when considering a specific situation. Very few, if any, of us are truly innocent in any scenario. The ideas we adopt and disseminate, the conformity we accept, the evils we tolerate, the powers we use or misuse all mark us and mold us in various ways. I’ve suspected since I was a teenager that responsibility is complicated and popular understanding of it is willfully poor.
Shhhh! Just don’t.
Despite your appeal to authority, I see no reason to believe you understand anything…
I will only say that even when government is abusive to its people government is not as separate from the governed as it appears.
So, your unemployed?
Everyone is ignorant. It is necessary that we do not build our world view directly out of ignorance. The first step is to sincerely care about "the masses" and their true condition instead of trying to set one’s self up as their "superior".
Probably true enough, but it seems unlikely that you know why.
Re: Re: Re:4 ooohhhhh
This is a problem. You care more about “how” something is said, than the message being said. You do realize that this is a pointless effort correct?
I say it one way, and you will not like it, I say it another way, and a different person will not like it. I understand the concept behind the idea of attracting more flies with honey rather than vinegar but a wise person knows this instead.
“Lies are sweet”
while
“Truth is bitter”
If you seek a sweet message, then you seek untruth. It is not my intention to offend, but to tell you to knock the stupidity off!
How about you tell me how to tell a bunch of people are being stupid, without calling them stupid?
Just telling someone “i have a better way” on its face implies that you are better than them for having figured something out. An offended mind is a juvenile one!
Re: Re: Re:5 ooohhhhh
You may be making the mistake of believing that the posters here are truth seekers. For the most part, they are not. Many of them are angry short haired ladies posing as men, eager to smear their childish hatred onto the walls of this latrine. Others are paid shills of Michael Masnick that mindlessly promote his paid propaganda. There are few actual thinkers here to benefit from your words. But I like and appreciate them, thanks for sharing. Just don’t expect too much from the “Mean Girls” of TechDirt, usually posing either as men or “other” anonymous cowards. They are a little too emotionally crippled to consider rational arguments.
Re: Re: Re:6 ooohhhhh
We even liked the Mad Max remake! We’re bastards, each and every one of us. Or something… Can we ladies be bastards if our hair’s really short and we’re really angry?
Re: Re: Re:6 ooohhhhh
Wait I thought we were all men posing as women! I’m confused as to which gender I’m being paid to perform as.
Re: Re: Re:6 ooohhhhh
I understand that my opinions are not in the mainstream here. I also understand that they want TD to become an Echo Chamber.
But either way, someone is always going to be around to bring the “inconvenient truth” their way.
I did notice that I have been brigaded away now as well. I am fine with that, most people will likely be more interested in what I am saying because of it. They do not understand that the tighter you squeeze your grip the more there is that slips through your fingers.
They sure to hate “I told ya so” though.
Re: Re: Re:7 ooohhhhh
Who is “they”?
Re: Re: Re:8 ooohhhhh
Everyone who disagrees
Re: Re: Re:6 ooohhhhh
Neither you nor the anonymous coward you are supporting (if you are not the same person) realized I was critiquing the implied analysis not the etiquette. If you are making broad social commentary, passing judgment on people is counter-productive and analytically incompetent.
Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh
How often can you give a baby candy before they start demanding it and making you miserable until you give in to them, or show them who is boss?
We have to take responsibility for politicians being lying fuckheads until we man-up and go punch some babies?
Re: ooohhhhh
I get it.
“I don’t like X. Find, conjure or amplify bad example of X. Invalidate all of X”.
This is a type of Lying Logic™. The internet is full of people using dishonest arguments like this.
Re: Re: ooohhhhh
No, yours is the lying… they have a word for it that is not “trademarked” try looking it up in the dictionary… here let me link you.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denial
Pay special attention to definition 2.
Human behavior is a core operational factor in all things. As humans you seek to transfer responsibility and culpability away from yourself. It is never your fault, only someone or something elses fault. The UK installed Theresa May, if they do not like it, they can put someone else in her place. If they are so cowardly to do nothing about a tyrannical government, then they have what their actions have asked for.
Re: ooohhhhh
You’re comparing apples to oranges and telling us all fruit is bad.
Re: Re: ooohhhhh
Yep. Whoever this is, they do it in a lot of threads, behaving as if their broad political realizations are insightful, when in fact they are so generalized as to be completely useless.
Username “Wake_up_sheeple”.
Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh
They are not insightful, they are very basic. The problem is that folks like you are so twisted in logic and understanding that even the basics are beyond your comprehension.
There is not more basic than knowing that you have your own best interested at heart compared to others.
When you give up your interests to “regulation” then you get more Theresa May’s around to take advantage of that “culture of regulation” because someone has to be in charge of that. This is basic logic, not something of great insight!
I have come to believe that most people have developed a Stockholm’s like syndrome for regulation. Most people alive today have not even seen a free market or anything close to it. Most choice is an illusion because people ignore umbrella corporations and their politicians… unless they need something from them of course.
This makes life simple for the simpletons but difficult for the intelligent, because they have to wage an uphill battle against their idiotic regulations. Sadly thought, a lot of intelligent people have lost hope and now work on behalf of the simpletons because it is just easier win with numbers.
So yea, you are so simple, you cannot even comprehend the basics.
Re: Re: Re:2 ooohhhhh
When you give up your interests to "regulation" then you get more Theresa May’s around to take advantage of that "culture of regulation" because someone has to be in charge of that
Uh, yeah? No shit? In the course of your relentless crusade to call everyone an idiot… did you happen to stop to think that nobody disagrees with you on that count?
So what’s your solution? Let’s say we cut all our ties to regulation. According to you that just leaves tyrants like May to step up and take over anyway, so that’s dumb. But let’s say we don’t cut all our ties to regulation, so we’re still holding onto it, then you claim we have Stockholm Syndrome so that’s dumb too.
Regulation – regardless of whether we have it or not, the end result is you calling all of us idiots. Fantastic, so now what? We get to listen to you for all eternity?
Re: Re: Re:3 ooohhhhh
“did you happen to stop to think that nobody disagrees with you on that count?”
Do you think before you post? I am posting this because I already KNOW most do not agree with me. The first step in educating others is to provide them with new information. The next step is to show them why your information is better than theirs. Right now I am telling you that Teresa is showing you what I have been telling you guys will happen with a pro-regulation stance. The more you support it, the more advantage of regulation will be made. Just like with the FCC and Ajit, your seat at the regulations table is replaced with nothing but smoke and mirrors.
“Regulation – regardless of whether we have it or not, the end result is you calling all of us idiots. Fantastic, so now what? We get to listen to you for all eternity?”
Until you learn, or I grow tired of telling you this yes. Of course, I will not be the only one telling you this either.
The solution is long but in short. People need to tell their governments that they are the boss, not the other way around. We will tell you what laws we want, and start voting out any politician that gives any business the time of day. We will also begin a rebellion if you want to go Erdogan on us either, o wait you need guns for that.
Getting the idea yet? Retain your liberty, refuse the tyranny of government, stop being a mindless consumer and take responsibility for where you money goes?
Re: Re: ooohhhhh
All fruit is bad. That’s why there are self defense against fresh fruit courses in the UK.
Re: ooohhhhh
They keep usining words like “democratic”, “democracy” but I don’t think it means what they intend them to mean.
Re: Re: ooohhhhh
this is one of the great ruses of our time. there are no democracies that currently operate in the world, but a lot of government’s abscond with that name because it sounds good to the people. Boy do they eat it up!
Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh
This is some interesting Irony, I responded in agreement to the original post, it gets marked as Insightful, but mine are flagged for removal.
Good times!
Re: Re: Re:2 ooohhhhh
Not flagged for removal, flagged. After enough “flags”, the comment gets hidden, not removed. So anyone will be able to see your stupidity, by just clicking the “Click here to show it” link, for all of time.
Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh
You know, I watched that documentary about the Jihadist next door, and he sounds a lot like you. Are you an Islamic Extremist? He was saying pretty much the same thing about “no democracies”. Who are you, actually, and what do you believe?
Re: Re: Re:2 ooohhhhh
Probably an extremist, their particular religion does not matter.
Re: Re: Re:3 ooohhhhh
Anarchist. They don’t like “government” on principle and believe that all transactions ought to be on a fully voluntary basis. In practice, it doesn’t work out.
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/why-poverty-is-everybodys-problem.html
The part about private cities is particularly amusing, when the writer talks about “modest taxes.” That’s the point at which he loses the argument. Anarchy doesn’t scale.
“Ban WhatsApp so that every British citizens messages can be intercepted and read by anyone!”
Well, that doesn’t sound good.
“OK, then we’ll censor the internet so that way only certain things can be read by certain people!”
But doesn’t that fly in the face of the first thing you just proposed?
::Theresa May spins in circles like the London Eye::
She's wrong, but right....
Skipping the whole over simplifying of “blame the internet” (because it makes her points sound less valid), the reality is that May isn’t entirely wrong.
Let’s ignore the whole “evil terrorist” thing, and work with a simpler concept, one that would seem even rarer:
people who love Robin Reliants.
If you don’t know what it is, I’ll give you a second to google it (evil site) and get some images so you can understand how truly aweful of a concept it really is. But there are people who are big fans. Not many, they are spread out, maybe one in every town in the UK. Without the internet, they likely would never know about each other, they would never be able to find parts to fix their classic crap wagons, and the world wouldn’t be blighted by this horrible car anymore except perhaps in rare cases.
Instead, these Robin-heads can get together, know each other, share knowledge and parts, and as a result, there are a ton of these wretched three wheel monstrosities still roaming the earth. Damn internet.
Internet sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and the like have allowed people with very peculiar tastes to find other people like themselves. Instead of being laughed at because they are the one moron with a car that is likely to tip over at every corner, they are instead forming clubs. In a world population in the billions, you only need a couple of dozen people to make something like that go.
Hate groups of all sorts work in the same manner. They don’t need huge numbers of people, they just need the right people. ISLISDaesh doesn’t need a million followers all over the world, they just need to find the one in a million person ripe to be influenced, and they can put the information in front of them and sell them on the concepts.
The internet makes it easy. Hands off operators who refuse to deal with anything (except if it has a nipple, heaven forbid, Facebook will remove the image and ban your account instantly, you craven lowlife). Hate mongering groups have pretty much a free ride.
The power of these services is huge. So much so that the leaders of Facebook and Twitter have been threatened for closing accounts:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/27/why-isis-has-threatened-the-ceos-of-facebook-and-twitter/
May’s solutions are not right. The fish rots from the head down, and the head is Facebook, Twitter, et al. They have to choose themselves to take action and define their services as not being a safe place for terrorists, in the same manner it’s not a safe place for drug dealers, porn site operators, or others involved in illegal activities. They have to step. Legislation, in any form, comes only because they are not standing up and doing what is right.
Re: She's wrong, but right....
The real terrorists are Reliant Robin owners???
Re: She's wrong, but right....
Just couldn’t resist the urge to disagree with Techdirt… as usual.
How are you coping with the fact that fair use exists?
Re: Re: She's wrong, but right....
I don’t think you read my post at all. I don’t disagree with Techdirt specifically, rather I think it’s easy to bury reality by dismissing it as “blaming the internet”.
Those who defend websites that don’t work to remove certain types of things generally go down the road of “websites are like a printing press or a photocopier”. That is to give the impression that the person or company who built the tool don’t actually control it in operation. That would be true if the software was operated outside of their control. However, in the case of most websites (facebook, twitter, instagram, whatever) they are not only the builders of the software, they are the operators of it as well. As such, they are (and will always be) in a position to control what appears on their site.
Another good example would be wordpress, a very popular blogging platform that comes in two flavors: Hosted and downloadable / host it yourself. Blogs that people host themselves are not under wordpress control. However, those hosted on the wordpress.com domain are. WordPress as a downloadable software is a printing press, wordpress hosting blogs is a company operating a printing press.
When you move from selling printing presses to operating them, the responsibilities change. Since companies like wordpress, facebook, and instagram ban nudity / porn / gore and the like, they clearly do have the ability to do so.
It’s not a question of blaming the internet. If a printing company was turning out child porn images for someone who was then distributing them, they would be in trouble. Why would a website that does the same be exempted? They control the printing press, they can say no.
It’s easy to dismiss stuff when you don’t want to accept the very adult responsibility for what is on your website. The internet is maturing and the laws are catching up to fill in the gaps, making “on the internet” sound more and more like a lame excuse for not being responsible.
Re: Re: Re: She's wrong, but right....
Do you make each talking point a separate paragraph?
in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
If even ONE of the people involved had a firearm it would be a “gun control issue”… because you can legislate away human nature.
Also how is Trump with his travel ban of people from terrorist hotspots (common friggin sense) and generally normal HUMAN absudities more stupid/ignorant/hateful/blather-blather-frothy-froth-froth than this “we need to babysit everyone” genius?
Re: in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
I meant to say “in the absence agressive of CAR and knife control…”
brainfart
Re: in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
I’ve never understood this.
I get people who love their guns. I really do. I have a Beretta AL391 12ga and I shoot sporting clays literally every weekend. I don’t hunt, but I have no qualms with people who do. I mean, I’m from Alabama. It’s hard to hate guns here, even as a liberal.
That said, I’ve never understood this idea that people need assault rifles in their homes. Let’s think this through calmly for a moment, shall we?
1) A rifle is a horrible personal defense weapon. In tight quarters (i.e. inside your house) a shotgun or pistol is an infinitely more effective personal defense weapon.
2) An automatic or simi-automatic rifle is useless for hunting. First, the instant your prey hears the report, they’re running and you’ve lost them, so either your first round gets them, or you just ain’t gonna get them. Second, isn’t half the point of hunting to hone kind of skill? What does it say about your skill that you need a gun that shoots 300RPM with a 30-round magazine to kill a wild animal?
3) You cannot take on the federal government. You just can’t. I don’t know what the hell people are thinking, but this crap won’t fly. I mean, let’s say you do the impossible. You hold out against the FBI, the ATF, Homeland Security, etc. As soon as you manage to shoot enough of them and survive (which’ll never happen – the FBI will just stick a bomb on a drone and kill you that way) then you know they’re sending in the U.S. Army next. Do you really think your backwoods 30-man militia has a snowball’s chance in hell against the US ARMY?!
So given all this, why do you need automatic rifles? Shooting cans in the back yard? That’s fun, I guess.
But if there was a reasonable argument that giving up my shotgun would save even one life, I’d do it in a heartbeat.
There isn’t.
But there’s a very, VERY reasonable argument that giving up your AR-15 might.
Or rather, just giving up the right to resell it. You can keep your arsenal you crazy loon. Even the most liberal liberal in DC has never once actually suggested taking anyone’s guns. All anyone wants is to say we don’t sell automatic rifles to crazy people without a background check. That infringes on your rights NONE unless you’re either A) crazy or B) a convicted felon of a violent crime.
And…you aren’t, right?
Re: Re: in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
“That said, I’ve never understood this idea that people need assault rifles in their homes. Let’s think this through calmly for a moment, shall we?”
Because you do did not learn from history. Need is a flexible thing. When does person need an assault rifle in their home? When they are being assaulted of course. Take America and the very lost principle behind the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment is there because all able bodied citizens of the USA are supposed to be ready at all times to form a militia, so that they can defend the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Try reading this article.
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
You cannot farm out the defense of your family to government because they just do not care about you or your family in that way. They care about defending the nation as a whole, your sacrifice is NOTHING to them. Heck, they might even KILL you off if the need arises to serve their agenda.
But if you wish to cower behind another man with a gun, go right ahead, just know that the bill will always come due when you decide someone else is better suite to defending you than yourself.
Re: Re: in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
other than the obvious threat of tyranny… you obviously have not had to live in a area close to where rioting has started. In the face of the mob a handgun might as well be a bb gun.
Re: Re: Re: in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
“the obvious threat of tyranny”
What does this mean? Like, in english? What “tyranny” are you going to defeat with your personal collection of firearms?
Is this “tyranny” supposed to mean the federal government? If so, see #3 above. You HAVE NO CHANCE against the federal government, tyrannical or otherwise, period.
Is this “tyranny” supposed to be corporations? Well, you can’t shoot a company. A company isn’t a shoot-able thing. You might be able to shoot the CEO, but A) that’s murder and B) the company will still exist. How is your firearm going to stop corporate tyranny?
Is this some other kind of “tyranny” that I’m unaware of? If so, please, enlighten me.
Also, yes, I’m aware that an AR-15 is simi-auto. I’m also aware it costs about $16 to make it fully automatic. You’ll still have overheating/jamming problems with a large box magazine, but any idiot with a metal grinder and an internet connection can make an AR-15 automatic.
The same is not true of my shotgun, nor of most pistols. Nor is the same true of, for example, a bolt-action hunting rifle. There’s a clear difference between an AR-15 and, for example, a Remington 700. There’s a reason nobody ever brings the later to shoot up a movie theater, and the same reason why only dingbats with poor aim bring the former to hunt.
Re: Re: in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
I somewhat agree with you but the same can be said about any hobby. Why own a Harley Davidson, why purchase a car that can go 150 MPH, why spend $1,000s on designer clothes? As long as people don’t do illegal things with their hobby, let them do what they want.
Disagree with you on the AR-15. First is that assault rifles are already illegal to own in the US. Assault rifles are automatic rifles. AR-15 is only a semi automatic rifle and not an assault rifle. If your increase gun laws so that you can’t own semi automatics, then your hand gun would be illegal too.
Also, the AR-15 can be customized several different ways. I personally don’t have one but I do know people who use them for hunting.
Re: Re: in the absence agressive of gun and knife control...
“assault rifle” is a legal category comprised of mostly cosmetic features that look scary but don’t impact performance. I very much doubt that you’re actually a gun person because you’d know that if you were.
Your post reads like what an anti-gun person thinks gun rights supporters believe.
Back in March, her government blamed Whatsapp and moved on
If, instead,they had done a proper analysis of the Westminster attack (van + knife, sound familiar?), the government might have re-hired some of the 20.000 cops Teresa May had fired earlier.
And the knife-men wouldn’t have had a free roam for 8 minutes to attack dozens of innocents while police were flown in from away.
Re: Back in March, her government blamed Whatsapp and moved on
And you advance the notion that 20k cops would have stopped this? The idea that Police are for protection is the sign of a juvenile or corrupt mind.
The only thing you will get with more police is a need for government to pay for them by getting them to write more tickets and fines to justify their presence.
They are also going to want more justification by stopping more crime. And if crime is too low, then they need to create more criminals o keep the numbers up.
Getting the idea yet?
Re: Back in March, her government blamed Whatsapp and moved on
“Pay no attention to the evidence of ongoing mismanagement and ineptitude behind the curtain….”
Re: Back in March, her government blamed Whatsapp and moved on
I keep seeing this “8 minutes” around like it’s some kind of eternity. And all I can think is “holy shit! Only 8 minutes before police put a stop to it?! There are many places in the US where it would have been almost an hour before any cops would have even arrived on the scene.”
Yet another example of “brains not required” to be a politician… on either side of the ocean.
In the same way that the internet has always been chock full of (apparently) 13 year old girls with an insatiable attraction to (gullible) middle aged men ….
A big reason the so called “jihadist” sites will never be eliminated from the internet is because a large number are honeypots run by the CIA and MI6, sites which might be just as capable of radicalizing potential lone wolf terrorists as the “real” thing.
the aim of May and Rudd is to be able to spy on everyone, all the time, everywhere. terrorism is at the bottom of the list of priorities because governments are more concerned with making as sure as possible that their own mis-deeds are not discovered and then broadcast to the world! there is more terrorism committed by governments everywhere than all the terrorist groups, it’s just that the one gets publicity and the other gets hidden!!
Re: Re:
Confirmed correct. Amber Rudd, our Home Secretary, has been quoted as saying that having fewer Bobbies on the beat doesn’t harm public security. Mayor Siddique Khan would beg to differ, ma’am.
“What would I do regarding our hypothetical captured terrorist leader? I would make him comfortable. I’d make sure he was cared for and got what he needed.”
“We have demonized terrorist organizations enough as it is.”
Really? This is the learned member of the TechDirt community (Uriel-238)who represents the values here?
Really?
Who’s that?
“Blaming the internet for some angry individuals committing violent acts isn’t just dumb and nonsensical, it’s counterproductive and will almost certainly do more harm than good.”
Some angry individuals? Are you insane? Some angry individuals?
Who Knew?
The Internet is a viral disease that has a direct connection to people’s wants and desires portion of their brains. Do an educational search about say ‘jihadist’ and presto chango one gets infected with ‘jihadist ideology’. Then, the failure of the medical community to create a vaccine for such a malady means the only ‘cure’ is a preventative isolation ward, which is actually a vector for not becoming infected in the first place, rather than a cure.
The problem that presents itself is that the isolation ward’s size would be world wide and actually prevent everyone from finding ways to understand those that wish others harm. A methodology for a continuation of the issue, which is maybe what Theresa May actually wants, as an excuse for more government power.
Re: Who Knew?
“finding ways to understand those that wish others harm?”
How much do you need to understand about those who gladly blow themselves up to kill children and parents?
Do you want to understand their pain?
Give them a little therapy, maybe? A “safe space” to express themselves?
Are you going to hold them harmless because they made a “series of bad choices”?
Understand them? I understand them. They need someone to kill them in order to dissuade them from maiming and killing innocents, and they have made that very clear, repeatedly, and in public.
Re: Re: Who Knew?
Do you understand the minds of our very own domestic terrorists? Why do conservatives give them a free pass?
Re: Re: Who Knew?
“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,”
She is talking about right here, right now, with your “angry individuals” (not terrorist organizations) and comments like “We have demonized terrorist organizations enough as it is.”
No doubt about it – Theresa May is talking about TechDirt and your group of delusional “Mean Girls”. Quit trying to understand and comfort our enemies while refusing to name them.
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
Re: Re: Re: Who Knew?
Did you just reply to yourself claiming that you are part of the problem?
Re: Re: Re:2 Who Knew?
Trivialize all you want. Truth is truth. TechDirt coddles and sympathizes with terrorists, over and over, again and again. It’s disgusting and should stop immediately.
Re: Re: Re:3 Who Knew?
So then you did reply to yourself calling you the problem?
Re: Re: Re:4 Who Knew?
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
Re: Re: Who Knew?
The real question is not why do they wish others harm, but what drove them to a position that not only do the wish other harm, but hat they are willing to die doing others harm. That is a much harder question fot those with power and money to ask, especially as their privilege is part of the reason. Meanwhile harder and harder censorship of society is only likely to drive more people to violence, because they become so isolated that they can no longer connect with the rest of society.
Re: Re: Re: Who Knew?
Yes, that is the question, but the only place it exists is in your pretty little head. Only a TechDirt Mean Girl would consider why they wish to do us harm, or justify their actions by pointing out they are so “isolated” (poor babies). You know what you need? A man. Someone who cares enough about you to help you overcome your ridiculous fantasies. Maybe give you a purpose other than to share your internal hatred with strangers on the internet. But, I’m guessing that men don’t actually like anything about you. Ever consider integrating a little better into the normal society that surrounds you? Look normal, speak normally, that kind of thing? It might help.
Re: Re: Re:2 Who Knew?
What you’re proposing is at best a short term solution. Blowing oneself with hope bringing as much destruction with him/her is just a symptom. You could find ways to prevent that from happening, but it will be a whack-a-mole game, with increasing draconian measures implemented, which in turn may drove more “suicide bombing”. In a way, it’s the same with the copyright / piracy debate.
Trying to understand what drove them will lead to a more lasting solution. Solve the core problem and the symptom will be minimized, if not go away entirely.
Re: Re: Re:3 Who Knew?
Well, I get what you are saying, and yes, from one perspective it is a short term solution. But we do have an immediate threat, as demonstrated by world events, something like 30,000 killed in the last year. It’s a war, and it’s right now. Before you can win a war, you must be on a “war footing”. That is, placing yourself in a position where it would even be possible to confront your assailant. So, IMHO, that would be an appropriate step at this time. That would include identifying the enemy, which is not some “angry individuals”, as Michael Masnick stated in the article above. There are a lot of steps following that, each one important. THEN, in the future, AFTER we confront and DEFEAT the enemy, we should examine how to avoid making the obvious mistakes we have made. 30,000 dead this year, get that? War. War footing. That is how many people see the problem, and I have not heard a credible argument against defending ourselves, our family and our culture from self-declared suicidal combatants. First. Before we understand them. Defend ourselves, then educate ourselves AFTER we win the war. So we don’t lose. We don’t actually want to lose, right?
Re: Re: Re:2 Who Knew?
You’re kind of ignorant aren’t you, most “know it alls” are.
Re: "The Jihadist Next Door": Life imitates art?
You can’t make this stuff up!
One of the London Bridge attackers appeared in the British BBC4 documentary “The Jihadist Next Door” in 2016.
Was he “radicalized” by appearing in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DsG9yQrdD4
“The film followed a group of Britain’s most dangerous extremists for two years…”
“It’s a way for May and her colleagues to try to pin the blame on “something else” rather than to admit that they don’t appear to have a real strategy or plan for almost anything.”
In the immortal words of Messrs. Parker & Stone:
“We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where’s the evidence the Internet is responsible?
Why Theresa May doesn’t blame cars and knives?
Re: Re:
Well, outlaw stupidity: the government would be in the position to cater for free thorough and responsible education for everybody.
Who would choose to die as a deluded martyr if he has the option to live as a respected member of society? How many settled pediatricians with Muslimic roots become suicide killers?
If you make life valuable to people, they will not throw it away lightly.
That would definitely be a large setback for all sorts of terrorists. It would also be a large setback for all sorts of politicians.
Re: Re: Re:
But that would not be as much fun for those who enjoy making money off other’s misery.
This whole Blame the Internet and Encryption crap is getting OLD. It’s the first thing they start spouting off even though either had anything at all to do with it 99% of the time.
Even if it was 100% of the time, so what. How about fixing the real problems.
“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed…”
…said every fascist dictator ever.
Re: Re:
I think… I may have technically Godwinned this thread. Apologies.
Re: Re: Re:
None required on the grounds that you’re correct.
Hello PM May
“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed – yet that is precisely what the West’s toppling of dictatorial regimes in the Middle East has provided,”
-FTFY
“Only a dictator can run a country where you have Alawites, Christians, Bahais, Druze, Shias, Sunnis living next to each other.” -Korwin Mikke
Re: Hello PM May
So religion is the problem.
Of course, if you are going to travel to the UK, you can bypass her proposed censorship by setting up a VPN on your computer, before travelling to Britain.
You just then log on to your VPN to access the Net, while you are in Britain, and bypass May’s planned censorship. The computer in my apartment in Sacramento, California, is not subject to the jurisdiction of HM Government.
AND
this person would censor the sound of a FART in the bathroom..
Re: AND
Well, that might be considered a public service, right? Like deleting your post and all similar psots, right? Something done on behalf of the normal clean educated people to censor the shit you smear on the walls of this latrine.
Reflections in the Mirror
Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
Is the internet responsible for the past 100 years of England’s militaristic foreign policy in the Middle East?
Theresa May and her ilk have offered up their morally reprehensible/bankrupt policy prescriptions (ie more security, less liberty, more surveillance, less privacy, more bombing/intervention, less diplomacy) for the past 100 years and where has it led us?
Look in the mirror Theresa the reflection staring back is where you need to begin.
Re: Reflections in the Mirror
You do understand you sound crazy, right? You a probably another “Pirate” like Michael Masnick, right? Lunatic fringe group of tin hat wearing clucking idiots. Would you like to say your are sorry to the terrorists? Maybe you could go in person, get down on your knees, and apologize on behalf of the free world. Really, maybe it would help. I’ll even pay for the ticket. Cover your hair and face, though. It would probably improve your appearance anyway. You TechDirt Mean Girls are sure ugly, on many levels.
Re: Re: Reflections in the Mirror
Ignorance is bliss
Gee, Theresa, I could have sworn you getting rid of 20.000 police while you were Home Secretary had more to do with the terror attacks than “The Internet”…
Does Theresa May even use the Internet?
Re: Re:
Only to download Spice Girls music.
Extremist messages
I keep seeing these radical messages about censoring the internet and total surveillance from this extremist called “Theresa May”. Why is anyone on the internet giving that extremist a platform for her totalitarian agenda?
Re: Extremist messages
Theresa May is a totalitarian, that’s your position? She is an “extremist”, that’s your position? Her messages are “radical”? You wonder who gave her a platform?
You are an anarchist, aren’t you, plain an simple. You want to overthrow the legitimate government, right? Spell it out for us, tell us your agenda, who you wish to destroy and who you wish to preserve. Please, inform us as to what occurs inside your “pretty little head”.
Re: Re: Extremist messages
Put down the beer and step away from the computer
LearnSome History
Theresa May needs to learn some history.
What we have now is a rerun of events that have happened many times before in the last 1400 years – and guess what? there was no internet for 99.9% of that time.
For inof on some of the more recent examples she could look here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
(and note some of the influene of British policy on events)
For a more complete view of the history one could look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&t=454s
By the way Theresa – ISIS is the original Islam.
The moderates (nice people though they are ) are the ones who changed it.
Re: LearnSome History
Well, you must be proud of yourself. Blaming the “moderates”, blaming Theresa May, blaming history. Maybe you would like to add America and “old white men” to your list of the blame worthy? Go ahead, defend the terrorists, blame everyone else, justify and rationalize their murderous barbarism. Take their side, even, make them comfortable, support their cause, explain their actions are rational and reasonable. Please.
You do more to define why TechDirt should be eliminated than the Email guy ever did. How disgusting you are.
Re: Re: LearnSome History
Let me guess – you do not consider white supremists to be terrorists.
Re: LearnSome History
TechDirt is an Assimilation problem
You know, I was watching Tucker Carlson the other night, and something struck me about what he said and how it is similar to what happens on TechDirt every day. He was talking about the problem with importing too many foreign immigrants too quickly. One negative outcome is the neighborhoods that exist in London where entire groups of people have failed to assimilate into society. They don’t speak the language, believe in the law or develop goals and ideals that are Western in nature.
And then I thought of TechDirt. This is pretty much a whole group of individuals who have not assimilated into society. Many are sexually confused, as shown by their sexually charged posts, by females hiding behind male names and male looking headshots, refusing to identify even their gender let alone their real name, and bizarre wishes to validate and excuse terrorism while simultaneously advocating the overthrow of the government.
It kind of makes sense, right? I mean, you (the Mean Girls of TechDirt) identify more with the terrorists than you do with normal society, right?
TechDirt is an Assimilation problem. Now, the question is, what to do about it. We could try to supply some education, mental health assistance, gender reassignment options (so you can come out of the closet), that is, try to win you over.
Or we could go down the path of the Email guy – maybe cheaper and esier to just burn it down (metaphorically).
Re: TechDirt is an Assimilation problem
Re: Re: TechDirt is an Assimilation problem
I see intentionally misrepresenting your gender as deceptive, so I point it out. I see intentionally posting such that you appear as multiple individuals when in fact it is a single individual as deceptive, so I point it out. I respect everyone’s right to be whichever gender or voice they would like to be, but I think it wrong to be deceptive in public forums like this one. Random strangers arrive here and believe they are hearing real voices. Pointing out the deceptions with the intent of discouraging them is a public service (IMHO).
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt is an Assimilation problem
You might have noticed that I borrowed the use of “Mean Girls” (from Tucker Carlson) to describe the philosophy often used on TechDirt to debate an issue. It’s just nutty, I mean, what people say. It loses all connection to time and space and compares abstractions to abstractions. It is without any coherent attachment to the actual world around us. It is often based on the idea that victims should be the privileged in society, and everyone else should apologize forever for every perceived and real harm done all through history. So, philosophically, I see this combination as nuttiness and victimhood as female, and by that I mean, the ugly part of female, whether displayed by men or women. Victimhood is an ugly defense of any issue, not attractive at all, from any angle. Maybe you hear that in my voice a little.
Re: TechDirt is an Assimilation problem
“I was watching Tucker Carlson the other night”
This may be part of your problem.
Sellout
Hey, Michael Masnick, I had a dream that Tucker Carlson came to my house and privately disclosed to me from an unnamed but very credible leak inside the deep state that you took money directly from Jihadi John (may he burn in hell) in order to promote his terrorist agenda on this web site.
He told me (in my dream) that you take money from a lot of people, not just him, and many of them want you to defend the terrorist cause and belittle the cause of defense from terrorists. And that you were paid not to name them, but to call them “angry individuals”. How much did you get for that, Michael Masnick? Is it really worth it, you sellout?
Socialist Politicians are completely dumb! (Yes, the UK Conservatives are Socialists)
“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed”
I guess she fails to see the obvious that’s glaring at her right in the face … The Whole of Europe is a Safe-Space for Islam to breed!
Re: Socialist Politicians are completely dumb! (Yes, the UK Conservatives are Socialists)
I think what Theresa May saw, before any of us did, is that the terrorist was actually on TV in a documentary describing how he was a dangerous terrorist in full view of everyone. It is really a shocking reality that he could operate in full view and be promoted on TV and the internet, right in front of everyone, as a dangerous terrorist, and then execute his attack, unfettered by any sign of concern by the authorities. Incredible, right? I think she understood what normal people would think about this in the future, and she decided she should try to get ahead of it a little by pointing out some changes are warranted. That seems reasonable, changes are warranted, and it is nothing to be “embarrassed” about. I know everyone is worried about the integrity of the internet, but maybe it’s time to worry about the integrity of our safety and the terrorists among us that want to kill us. That might be worth a little attention, too. They are not “angry individuals”, they are radical suicidal Islamic terrorists. Naming them would be a good start, Michael Masnick.
Re: Re: Socialist Politicians are completely dumb! (Yes, the UK Conservatives are Socialists)
The UK had evidence and did nothing – what you say to that?
Re: Re: Socialist Politicians are completely dumb! (Yes, the UK Conservatives are Socialists)
Go and learn what Socialism means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The UK conservatives are fascist.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v16/n07/edward-luttwak/why-fascism-is-the-wave-of-the-future
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm