Because he is a censorious totalitarian who wants to impose the morals he thinks people should have on them.
The only other possibilities I can see are: 1/ Shouting about a pointless, ineffectual "moral crusade" is a good way to distract from all the other truly awful and stupid policies of the government and is a good bait-and-switch for removing even more freedom from the "free" country that is the trying-to-catch-up-with-China UK
2/ He really is stupid enough to think that a law passed in Westminster is going to have more effect than generating a laugh for the 95+% of porn sites that aren't based in the UK.
"magic TLA superwatch" or whatever and they didn't say we don't have it, but here's the "super FLA megawatch
Maybe annoying, but can you imagine the level of coding needed to sort out human-entered search terms into "specific item" vs. "general search for watches like this"? It'd need to be AI!
Either you get exactly what you asked for and nothing else (which means you're in trouble if you mis-spell it) or you get stuff like what you asked for. This is why Google allows you to modify your search to force the presence of terms (+thing +brandname or whatever) in the result, but even it's tenuous because of cross references. I've no idea of Amazon implements this 'coz I've never cared enough to find out...
Rogers said a framework to allow law enforcement agencies to gain access to communications is in place within the phone system in the United States and other areas, so "why can't we create a similar kind of framework within the internet and the digital age?"
Is it artful or dumb to mistake infrastructure for data like this? He's talking about physical intercept of phonecalls - something that it seems the NSA still have on the internet more-or-less as they hoover up all passing traffic at some of the key nodes.
This has nothing to do with encryption - in his phone scenario; sure you can intercept the call, but if the guy on the other end says, "The Pork-chop Express rides when the Ptarmigan flies South" you're still not going to be any the wiser.
The idea that the winner of an election has any sort of mandate from the voters is ridiculous from the outset.
Be fair; the winner usually has a mandate from the "voters" that contributed hundreds of thousands of pounds to his election campaign - the handful of them that are actually British citizens and eligible to vote that is.
When the majority has no issue with an elected official to allow them to carry on with their antics, there's no reason to be concerned
When the guy was elected by about 20% of the population and less than 35% of those who bothered to vote, it's hardly a sweeping mandate, is it? And if you disagree with the moron, what's your alternative your election choices are between a gaggle of largely corrupt monkeys?
Dude, his freaking dad had no choice but to hand over rights for those videos/images while working for CBS and Paramount because the law was written by corporations like that to make sure a simple actor has no rights.
the cost/benefit is done by gut feeling.By observation, it's done by hand-waving, random "moral" panic and at best cronyism, rather than anything more based in reality like "gut feeling"... or Ouija boards.
3) It really is operationally sensitive because they'd been tracking his porn habits for months and that's how they found him since every copy of "Naughty Jihadists 5" and that month's edition of "Mature Martyrs" have secret CIA GPS chips embedded....
4) The list of porn is all identifiable as coming from the private stash of the CIA used as part of honey trap operations and would show that OBL was really a prisoner before he was caught....
5) Oh, I've run out of conspiracy theories... guess I'll just have to go with the prevailing "They lied" theory :-)
It's kinda worrying when an over-the-top comedy sketch from the 1970s starts looking like behaviour that might be a step in the right direction! Constable Savage At least this guy's boss calls him on it!
Re: "File sharing" is not a gateway! -- SEZ anyone with 1/2 a brain
To set morality aside is step toward criminality.
Except you already blew that argument yourself by not talking about morality:
Is crystal meth a "gateway" to criminal behavior like robbery / theft?
Taking Crystal meth is not immoral. Stupid, maybe. Illegal, certainly - but arbitrarily illegal. Other recreational drugs are available legally and are often socially accepted, many drugs now illegal were also socially accepted previously (Heroin for example, Opium, E). Clearly drug-taking is not a matter of morality.
Also, much of the problem caused by illegal drug use stems from their very illegality and the crime that surrounds anything declared illegal that people still demand. Look how well prohibition worked out.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it immoral - even if it's illegal - and making things that are generally normal human behaviour illegal for the same reason usually ends up creating a bigger problem than you started with.
That's a truly remarkable graph if you consider the number of amazingly petty and stupid things that have become "offences" since the '90s. The "real" crime rate must have plumeted.
And there, perhaps, lies (if anywhere) a tiny, tiny grain of validity in the "gateway to bigger crimes" argument - If you're going to make blatantly normal human behaviour criminal, it can hardly come as a surprise if those growing up in that environment start finding a certain contempt for laws in general whether they actually break them or not.
and that this gives him confidence Netflix will thrive when it launches later this year in Spain -- a country that has traditionally had a high level of piracy
If Netflix fails, it will be little to do with piracy and lots to do with the content lobotomy forced upon it by the studios. Even though I rarely bother to watch the trash Hollywood puts out these days, I'd pay for a service like Netflix if I could watch what I want, whenever, wherever... but I can't so I don't.
It seems pretty likely from the user end, that the studios hate the idea of services like Netflix and are trying to kill them, whether they find piracy useful or not. Of course, the old saying might apply; "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity"
Why is it that grandstanding American politicians always want to blame the platforms for people doing bad stuff on those platforms, even when those platforms appear to provide all sorts of useful information that apparently help law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military do their jobs?
A fine question, to which the answer is "because morons". Whether it's actually true or not is another good question - probably not since surely they're not quite dumb enough to reveal an effective method of intel gathering? If it is true, though, it strikes me a better question might be: If public social media can produce more actionable intel than, for example, hoovering up every email, phonecall and internet log in the world seems to... Why are you invading everyone's privacy again, Uncle Sam?
So it's official? The US is a plutocracy? It must be if a law so blatantly aimed at preserving the wealth of a very few of Wyoming's 1/2 a million citizens at the expense of the health of the rest can even be contemplated seriously, much less enacted.