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

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

As long as the ability to run a Dark Web exists, so too will the very boogeyman they push.

Policing the internet won't solve nor prevent much of anything (and I'm being generous there)

a reply to: carewemust

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

originally posted by: Nyiah
As long as the ability to run a Dark Web exists, so too will the very boogeyman they push.

Policing the internet won't solve nor prevent much of anything (and I'm being generous there)

No.
this whole regulating the dark web stuff is just the government wanting control over all of us.

These people use whatsapp and stuff, their accounts are already compromised by gchq.

the rest of us don't need spying on.

Just round up those we already know as is supporters and put them into camps.

Leave everyone else alone

a reply to: Nyiah


Apparently you don't even need a "dark web". The terrorists in the London Bridge attack watched You Tube videos for guidance, according to communications that were intercepted 2 weeks ago:

""Counter-terrorism officers recorded one alleged suspect from the extremist cell discussing how to use YouTube videos which will make it "easy to do", the Telegraph reports.

Investigators allegedly monitored the extremist cell based in Barking weeks before the attack on Saturday night occurred, which left seven people dead.

The suspect went on to describe the plot which would involve mowing down pedestrians and then getting out of the vehicle to attack others, the newspaper added.

Another alleged suspect reportedly said the intended method was to “use a car as a weapon” and boasted that he had radicalised more than a dozen “students” in Barking “wanting to martyr themselves”.

He said, according to the Telegraph: “YouTube videos all make it properly easy to do.”"

Source article: www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: carewemust

This is like banning The Anarchist Cookbook.

a reply to: carewemust

No, I get that, even making coded videos about puppies and kittens, or flowers & bees could be asshats discussing targets in euphemisms. Could look innocuous to word/ phrase auto-detector softwares and therefore be skipped by easily enough.

Policing the Surface Web won't catch everything, and policing the Dark Web? Good luck with that, that's how pedo sites run for years. Some get popped, but it makes you wonder -- for every one popped, how many go undetected still & never will be detected? Same thing with terrorist stuff online, for every one spot found, how many haven't been and will never be?

Ewww ... OMG where to even begin. No just no. That being said, I believe putting something out on the internet is akin to throwing out your trash. It can be looked at and possibly be used as evidence against you if you commit a crime. If companies like FB and Twitter would police their own sites we wouldn't even have to have this discussion. They have T&C agreements. They could easily use T&C to delete this crap.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Nyiah


Apparently you don't even need a "dark web". The terrorists in the London Bridge attack watched You Tube videos for guidance, according to communications that were intercepted 2 weeks ago:

""Counter-terrorism officers recorded one alleged suspect from the extremist cell discussing how to use YouTube videos which will make it "easy to do", the Telegraph reports.

Investigators allegedly monitored the extremist cell based in Barking weeks before the attack on Saturday night occurred, which left seven people dead.

The suspect went on to describe the plot which would involve mowing down pedestrians and then getting out of the vehicle to attack others, the newspaper added.

Another alleged suspect reportedly said the intended method was to “use a car as a weapon” and boasted that he had radicalised more than a dozen “students” in Barking “wanting to martyr themselves”.

He said, according to the Telegraph: “YouTube videos all make it properly easy to do.”"

Source article: www.express.co.uk...

My god, You don't need YouTube video to tell you how to run people over with a car.
Btw, you can't whine about fake media and use daily express as a reference. Daily Express is a # tabloid worse than anything you have in the US.
Stop reading it if you have any decency in you.

a reply to: carewemust

No, not ok at all.

Well, if they hire me to monitor things, I might reconsider...

To be fair, the Prime Minster was talking about "international agreements" being needed.

Personally, I would support laws with some heavy duty legal controls that remove and filter religious filth, just like paedophile content is blocked.

I would also welcome the big internet players (Facebook, for example) being forced to remove content designed to radicalise. Facebook can remove a nipple from a breastfeeding topic, so they should remove content that glorifies and encourages terrorism.

If you think a virtual firewall will stop people killing kids your off your rocker

a reply to: carewemust

I was already saying to a couple of friends that Theresa May will now start shutting down free speech under the guise of fighting terrorism by restricting internet freedom.

These new laws will be targetting Political dissidents that speak out about the criminality and hypocrisy of the Government.
It could be those speaking out about the Political elite being involved in the abuse of children or it could be someone talking about the lies of WMD's but they will be used unjustly against the average joe so that the only narrative is the official one which will be what it always has been and that's a total misrepresentation of the truth.

You really have to ask yourself cui bono....in whose benefit and we live in a World of total inversion and those that are drafting these new laws hide behind them to incrementally take away peoples God given rights to slowly foist the totalitarian state upon the public.

Let no crises go to waste.
Theresa May is shameless and has used this new attack to forward her masters agenda.
Under her watch hundreds of Libyan Jihadis went to and fro from England to Libya including the Manchester bomber... she allowed that so who does she serve becuase it is not the British people.
She obviously serves a Globalism and is a Puppet of the NWO.

You will most likely see the genuine alternative media shut down very quickly under these new regulations.
When this happens you will see the Government involved in every aspect of your life and an Orwellian type state with MSM being used as it already is as a propaganda machine of the deep state.

a reply to: carewemust

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

No body in their right mind would support such a notion. Lets see the evidence of the impact on weak minds of the publicing of terroist activity, real or otherwise creates even more terros.

Such a proposition is sheer lunacy, its a bit like sying if we ceased publicising terrotists events then that would stop terrorists events when we all know that no media coverage would mean even a lot more terroist events.

No.

Won't stop a thing and it will impede everyone else.

They'll move on to something else. It's like saying should they have check points randomly on a road and inspect cars to stop terrorists.

No ... there is no middle ground there is no compermise i will never agree to any regulation law or anything of the sort to fight terrorist

And ... really there going to stop terrorist bye regulating the internet .... they cant stop the aredy extensive amount of things that are illigal and there going to fight them there

the EU also used the paris attacks as an excuse for stricter gun laws.
the terrorists used already illegal weapons and the EU wants to ban LEGAL weapons for law abiding citizens?
this doesn't make sens unless you see the bigger picture:
war on terror isn't against terrorists.
it's against YOU and your freedom!

a reply to: carewemust

No. No I do not agree with it.

First, read my signature. That expresses my opinion on matters pertaining to liberty perfectly. Second of all, there is a glaring inefficiency of thought in Mays approach here.

Fact:

The security services have known of each and every one of the recent attackers identities, and that they were threats. They knew this and permitted them to walk around free anyway. They knew these individuals were threats, not because they hacked their phones or their bank accounts, nor their emails or their other traffic, but because people in the community outed them to the authorities. Signals intelligence would not have saved a single life in ANY of these situations. All the services had to do, was act on the HUMAN intelligence, from people within the Muslim community, who had come forward in good faith, precisely because they wanted to protect their fellow human beings from psychopaths who had infiltrated their ranks.

What Theresa May has failed to understand about this situation, is that if she had properly funded the interdiction teams whose job it is to act on human intelligence BEFORE something happens, if she had properly funded front line policing and the firearms unit (which she consistently failed to do as Home Secretary, and as the PM), if her government were not utterly incompetent dirt and nothing else, these recent attacks would simply never have happened, because the individuals responsible for them were known to be a danger to the public, should have been taken off the streets, their lives gone over with a fine toothed comb, and their every connection to the rest of the world sifted for what further intel could have been discovered, no doubt connecting the individual to a network of some sort, which itself could have been dismantled.

I refuse to accept that the lives lost in London and Manchester could not have been easily avoided, I refuse to believe that it is necessary for more interference in and monitoring of the internet traffic is necessary to prevent terrorism, because all the mass surveillance in the world has done nothing to secure us, what so ever. This is the most surveillance heavy nation, per head, in the bloody world or near as damn it, and none of it, not a single invasion of the privacy of one innocent person, has made the blindest bit of difference to the security of anyone in this country, not a single soul.

The price of liberty, as I state in my signature, is risking your life to keep it. I would rather be at increased risk, and have increased liberty, but as things are, acting on the advice and warnings of human beings on the ground, would have secured everyone and meant that liberty could have been retained. Its arse about face around here, and I for one am getting sick of it, absolutely sick of it.

a reply to: paraphi

It will not work the way it should work as is already being seen by the likes of Google filtering search engines in favour of Hillary Clinton and other tactics such as Ghost banning on twitter of people with conservative views and the Youtube Police or that halfwit snopes being a far left supposed voice of truth on what is fake news.

You can see how the underhanded tactics already in place by the above mentioned sites as well as Faceberg are being used to control public sentiment and socially engineer the mentally vulnerable into towing the establishment narrative.

After this is implemented the Government will still say we need to do more and will find another way to steal away your privacy....next step most likely national biometric system with some kind of tracking to monitor every citizens whereabouts as they will say they did not know the whereabouts of the next suicide bomber and then after that"fails" we will be told we have to ban cash as the terrorists are using it to by components for bombs and the transaction was impossible to trace.

Then you will see we are locked in a Distopian Orwellian Mark Of The Beast System which is what the Elites wanted and the fools saying internet regulation is a good thing are naiive useful idiots that have been plied into shape using the classic tactic of problem,reaction,solution.