It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are You OK With Government Regulation of the Internet to Reduce Terrorism?.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: southbeach

Yes, you don't need the government to interfere with the internet as the big corporations are doing it already! The level of government intrusion would be fairly small, and directed. Furthermore, it would have judicial control. Corporations have no such scruples.




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
ATS Members, how do YOU feel about government regulation of the internet, to eliminate the "safe space", for radical terrorist communications and recruitment? I assume this means not allowing access to certain websites, and increased monitoring of communications? Personally, I don't have a problem with that. What about you?


What by Jove has the Internet to do with this? You might just as well propose that we forbade all cars, or the use of knives, or took out all bridges, as they seem to be suspect (given 2 of the 3 attacks we recently had took place on a bridge). Perhaps we should forbid all phones, or close all pubs as they are frequently used to discuss politics... I might just as well propose to put a camera and microphone in each room in each home, and ask half the population to monitor the other half! We would have solved unemployement and have perfect security at one fell swoop

Also, your opinion probably would change soon, dear Sir, if you would frequently have to report to the local branch of the Royal Internet Security Police why you thought it a good idea to visit ATS - that nest of mentally ill people, whom are mostly anti-Government, and believe weird stuff like that we have a flat earth, are visited by aliens, and to top it all that our Honourable Queen is a shapeshifting lizard!

Read my lips: we can't stop these idiots, regardless what we try. Nor do we need to be doing much more than we already do! Sure, we should be vigilant, but also accept that we can't control everything if we want a reasonably free society. I've said this before, will say it again; we have 170 murders per annum in London. That's 170 too many, but I don't feel unsafe because of it when I walk the streets of London. Statistically, I'm quite safe. So, we're doing quite allright already, thank you, no need to over-react. The police was on site within 2 friggin minutes and had stopped these idiots within 8 minutes. You can't get get better than that.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
They need to do something but in this country we already have some pretty intrusive police powers when it comes to the internet. I think the Internet Service Providers need to do more and companies big on-line giants like goggle and facebook.

Terrorism is really just one part of a bigger problem of criminality on-line. The proliferation of child pornography, fraud and identity theft are also huge problems. I dont understand how they can do everything in their power to stop me downloading the new Smurffs movie from a torrent site yet all kinds of other pornographic depravity is just a google search away. I suspect its because this is about protect hollywoods profits and the later is just about protecting children.

The problem is catching out a individual, there is just so much data flowing through the internet these days picking put specific wrong doers isn't really going to work. A would be terrorist for example might just have a facebook group chat on with a few people from around the world egging him on..... there is not much you can do about that.

There are things you could do, I think having a independent body whose job it is to filer out harmful material online would be a good start. So sites known to be used for ISIS recruitment, just blocked for the internet in the UK, but not just sites regarding terrorism but also sites associated with pornography, id theft, fraud, copy-right infringement and so on.

At the same time create a statuary responsibility for big websites to police themselves. Take instagram for instance, say I see some dude posting loads of ISIS propaganda and report it to Instagram they should then have to delete the account, report to the police, investigate it and do so quickly. The other side of this is that the police have to have more resources then to investigate this and pursue those responsible.

Just my thoughts on it.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
NO.

No, no, no, no, no.

I am not okay with allowing a government to regulate what I am allowed to read and say on the internet.

That's grounds for torches and pitchforks.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
No.

If they sincerely cared about online "safe spaces" for terrorists they would have cracked down on it a long time ago and platforms like Twitter wouldn't be regularly verifying Jihadi accounts.

This is being used to push a different agenda and take focus away from the problem at a local level.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
At the end of the day, there is always the danger of what gets labeled terrorism too.

The government comes to power who starts watching Ethel because she and her Evangelical friends are talking about God to people instead of watching Muslims because some agency like SPLC draws hair-brained moral equivalence, and then real people who are trouble fall through the cracks because we are watching too many people, most of whom shouldn't really be watched.

It may be annoying when Ethel asks you if you've found God, but she's not packing a suicide vest to blow you up when you answer wrong.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
At the end of the day, there is always the danger of what gets labeled terrorism too.

The government comes to power who starts watching Ethel because she and her Evangelical friends are talking about God to people instead of watching Muslims because some agency like SPLC draws hair-brained moral equivalence, and then real people who are trouble fall through the cracks because we are watching too many people, most of whom shouldn't really be watched.

It may be annoying when Ethel asks you if you've found God, but she's not packing a suicide vest to blow you up when you answer wrong.


Nail, head.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Not even slightly.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
ATS Members, how do YOU feel about government regulation of the internet, to eliminate the "safe space", for radical terrorist communications and recruitment?

As Jefferson said (and is repeated in my signature area): "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

No, I'm not okay with government regulation of the internet, using it as a tool to search what I do on the internet (without appropriate cause and warrants), or anything else. The government (at least in America) doesn't own the internet, doesn't own those who provide service and access to the internet, and IMO, they have no jurisdiction to regulate the internet. If terrorists were blanketing cities with recruitment posters, would we be okay with the government regulating the printing and paper-production industries? No, that would sound absurd.

Well...exactly.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I don't like it.

The law would be abused.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
When this comes to America, which it will, we won't have much choice unless we force the government to take back national security laws. If we do that, they will stop all national security, it may seem like a good thing but it is not. They will stop screening at airports, after all, they cannot have their employees endangered by terrorists if the people do not support control of of national security. They already passed the necessary laws to do this, at the beginning of Obama's term if I remember correctly.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Ban terrorist from the Internet.
NO more terrorism! Um!

its all about control of information to the People.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

I don't like it.

The law would be abused.



I think of it as sacrificing (although I don't know what), to save the lives of innocent citizens around the globe.

Unfortunately though, prevention doesn't allow you to quantify how many people are saved... does it?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
June 4, 2017

After 2 terror attacks in the past 2 weeks, Britain's Prime Minister, THERESA MAY, is calling for Government regulation of the Internet:

""We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed," May said. "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," she continued. "We need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.""

Source Article: money.cnn.com...


In opposition to this idea, TIM FARRON, the leader of U.K.'s Liberal Democrats party, says:

""Theresa May’s pledge to regulate the internet to clamp down on the “safe space” for radical jihadis risks risks turning the web into a tool for surveillance and censorship, the Liberal Democrats’ leader said.

Tim Farron, likening May’s plan to North Korea’s and China’s state monitoring, said the prime minister’s speech, in the wake of the London Bridge attack, had been highly political despite the ostensible cancellation of campaigning for a day, ahead of the general election on Thursday.""

Source: www.theguardian.com...

ATS Members, how do YOU feel about government regulation of the internet, to eliminate the "safe space", for radical terrorist communications and recruitment? I assume this means not allowing access to certain websites, and increased monitoring of communications? Personally, I don't have a problem with that. What about you?

-CareWeMust



if you eliminate the "safe space" for jihadis; you eliminate it for everyone else too. The internet is a communication tool; they are very clearly talking about censoring and monitoring every ones communications. This eliminates the ability to propagate information of all types and removes the freedoms of people as a whole.

The reason they can use the internet to form a group; is because we all have the freedom and ability to do that -- the only way to remove their ability is to remove OUR freedom. Being free comes with an accepted risk; but it's a risk we take because we don't want to be told how to live.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

I don't like it.

The law would be abused.



I think of it as sacrificing (although I don't know what), to save the lives of innocent citizens around the globe.

Unfortunately though, prevention doesn't allow you to quantify how many people are saved... does it?


Remove all freedoms and save everyone; remove no freedoms and have a few bad things happen every now and again.

Which is better? Being told how to live; or living how you want to live? Is it worth sacrificing your freedom? If you do sacrifice your freedom there will eventually be a line too far and then you'll have dead people anyway.

We already answered this question when we founded the united states and that was a giant resounding NO with a big old side of NO. Why? Because it's a completely faulty premise.

The fault with the premise is as follows; everyone has their own opinion, and as long as you try to force an opinion ONTO someone, there will always be Violence. Freedom actually breeds safety because it instills happiness, the lack of freedom breeds violence because it instills contempt. The reason why there is violence now is because people try to force their way of life onto other people. That's what Jihad is. Kill all non-believers.

To censor the internet is to very literally surrender to the logic of terrorists in regards to what their intention is; it's to force their way of life on everyone else. So in effect; if they do censor the internet; they are forcing their way of life onto everyone else and encroaching on their happiness, which is generated from having the freedom to not be censored.

This is why people are so miserable in places that are censored, no coincidence then, that those places are not ideal to live in or conducive to safety. We're talking China/North Korea.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: carewemust
ATS Members, how do YOU feel about government regulation of the internet, to eliminate the "safe space", for radical terrorist communications and recruitment?

As Jefferson said (and is repeated in my signature area): "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

No, I'm not okay with government regulation of the internet, using it as a tool to search what I do on the internet (without appropriate cause and warrants), or anything else. The government (at least in America) doesn't own the internet, doesn't own those who provide service and access to the internet, and IMO, they have no jurisdiction to regulate the internet. If terrorists were blanketing cities with recruitment posters, would we be okay with the government regulating the printing and paper-production industries? No, that would sound absurd.

Well...exactly.


This is a practical example of what I was talking about above. If you regulated the paper then you'd be harming everyone more than the terrorists. We'd never be what we are today if this is how we conducted ourselves. We'd have ended up like Germany in the 40's or Soviet-Era Russia, and that's the road these practices take you down.

Regulate the internet, and all you'll get is state sponsored propaganda. This isn't about saving US or "Innocent" people; it's about controlling us; including the innocent people.

In fact; terrorism doesn't even exist, it's fabricated to scare you into accepting the erosion of your freedom. People don't inherently want to hurt other people, and I don't and won't believe for one minute that a person blows themselves up in an act of terror naturally. The events are all cultivated by the same people who claim to be trying to protect those "innocents" they just deleted from life. It's American and English governments, CIA and MI6. Why do you think we have a history of selling weapons to terrorists?

Why do you think Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated? Because he was spreading the message of freedom and equality. In fact; it's always the people who spread the message of freedom and equality that get assassinated. You don't find that to be a coincidence, do you?
edit on 5-6-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Didn't the US achieve full control of swedish bank accounts to erradicate the financing of terrorism.

How did that work for them?

They already have the means to shut down web sites. If they plan is to stop internet communication the terrorist will simply communicate using stolen mobiles or snail mail.

Its the terrorist freedoms that need be controlled, not ours.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust
Ok, um, let's see...
Let's go ahead and give everyone a registered # to use to get on the net.
Then let's monitor each and everything these 'legal' users say and do.
Will that prevent anything?
No.
It will be just like gun control.
The 'good guys' will be subjugated to being 'relegated a number' and the 'bad guys' will not follow the rules and do whatever evil illegal doings they already do.
Total BS.

peace



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Absolutely NOT... few reasons .
#1 potential for abuse of violating such a law/categorizing what is hate speech/terrorism/etc
#2 No way to monitor what trends are actually taking place and manipulating those trends
#3 I refuse to penalize anyone for thoughts.. even thoughts I find repugnant. We should never ever allow ourselves to even look at that slippery slope.

This terrorism issue has to be handled vigilantly and precisely. Check points, monitoring commerce on certain things... which we already do, but have NOT used it to prevent much. International movement and travel agreements... El Al level travel profiling and physical security. Israeli Air is the safest and can be proven with its track record. We look like pathetic amateurs at best.. allowing terrorism at worst with our pathetic TSA. We should have listen to the security advise given by El Al yrs ago... but people whined about profiling. Too bad. Hell, I look like those who would be stopped and profiled. Fine.. I dont care. There are SO many ways to deal with this that we have not utelized because someone might be offended ... the deaths of innocent folks being prevented trumps your fragile and tender sensibilities.. sorry.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: carewemust
June 4, 2017

After 2 terror attacks in the past 2 weeks, Britain's Prime Minister, THERESA MAY, is calling for Government regulation of the Internet:

""We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed," May said. "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," she continued. "We need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.""

Source Article: money.cnn.com...


In opposition to this idea, TIM FARRON, the leader of U.K.'s Liberal Democrats party, says:

""Theresa May’s pledge to regulate the internet to clamp down on the “safe space” for radical jihadis risks risks turning the web into a tool for surveillance and censorship, the Liberal Democrats’ leader said.

Tim Farron, likening May’s plan to North Korea’s and China’s state monitoring, said the prime minister’s speech, in the wake of the London Bridge attack, had been highly political despite the ostensible cancellation of campaigning for a day, ahead of the general election on Thursday.""

Source: www.theguardian.com...

ATS Members, how do YOU feel about government regulation of the internet, to eliminate the "safe space", for radical terrorist communications and recruitment? I assume this means not allowing access to certain websites, and increased monitoring of communications? Personally, I don't have a problem with that. What about you?

-CareWeMust



if you eliminate the "safe space" for jihadis; you eliminate it for everyone else too. The internet is a communication tool; they are very clearly talking about censoring and monitoring every ones communications. This eliminates the ability to propagate information of all types and removes the freedoms of people as a whole.

The reason they can use the internet to form a group; is because we all have the freedom and ability to do that -- the only way to remove their ability is to remove OUR freedom. Being free comes with an accepted risk; but it's a risk we take because we don't want to be told how to live.


It's been revealed this year that the National Security Agency (NSA) accesses any verbal or internet conversation, at will. People seem to be overacting to Theresa May's wish.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13


Is that what would happen if countries attempted to monitor internet communications? Only registered users, who have been "cleared" ahead of time would be able to login and surf?

That's WAY out there, Silo13.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join