UK aims to be "the safest place in world to be online"

[johnroe]

I could say that they the government or their regulators, or big tech companies; will always be tweaking the way the internet can be used. Usually in response to some media backlash. This GDPR is a step in the right direction, I wonder how some companies will respond, or adapt.

'individuals will find themselves with more power to demand companies reveal or delete the personal data they hold; regulators will be able to work in concert across the EU for the first time, rather than having to launch separate actions in each jurisdiction'.


from> https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-it-affect-you

[Spud1]

The problem is that, if sites cannot do it themselves, it must fall to the government. Free speech is about the government not persecuting you merely for expressing your opinion... but that does not extend to the populace. In the real world, if you start spouting racist drivel or something, people can quite readily turn around and kick your teeth in... online, your account gets banned, so you just use your VPN to sign up with a new one. There are usually ways around it.

Someone has to decide and someone has to police it..... but since we cannot have people policing themselves, due to both the apathy and abuse such roles have proven themselves open to, we're left with no choice.

I 100% disagree - in no way does the failure of some sites to self police (putting aside the "should they even have to" debate) mean that the government has to step in and impose legislation on everyone because of the actions of a few. That doesn't tend to end well in any society. Being truly anonymous on the internet is actually really, really difficult - a VPN doesn't protect you (even ones that don't directly store logs), bitcoin is not at all anonymous (due to it being based on a public block chain) and whilst there are of course methods to hide..your average abuser isn't going to be able to take advantage of them. The issue is that police forces do not have the manpower and resources to effectively investigate, find and prosecute those who commit those acts.

There are many ways to solve the problem without resorting to blanket anti privacy laws and regulating internet traffic - however they are all expensive to implement and the majority of LEA's don't have the funds to cover it en masse.

Personally I think the only sensible approach is to place real pressure on the most commonly used social media sites where this is really an issue - which more often than not means facebook - as they do have the funds and resources to clamp down on the abuse side of things. Regulating the entire internet is not the right approach, and will ultimately make things worse for everyone who uses it.

edit: this is of course just my opinion, no issue for those that disagree and want greater regulation..if my post comes off a little strong it's just because I am passionate about it no offence meant to anyone.

[Friesiansam]

1984 is coming, it's just a bit late.

[Wrinkly]

On one hand the UK seeks to ban terrorist media while allowing such media that shows drone strikes killing 'terrorists'.

[Corky34]

1984 is coming, it's just a bit late.

Typical of government IT projects, always late.

[Tabbykatze]

On one hand the UK seeks to ban terrorist media while allowing such media that shows drone strikes killing 'terrorists'.

It's just propaganda in the truest of sense from both sides.

[Macman]

People are so easily offended these days... dread the next generation

[Ttaskmaster]

I 100% disagree - in no way does the failure of some sites to self police (putting aside the "should they even have to" debate) mean that the government has to step in and impose legislation on everyone because of the actions of a few.

No, they don't have to. We can just man up and put up with all the hideous attitudes that general anonimity permits..... I'm sure it's all the school's fault for not teaching the children properly, anyway.

Being truly anonymous on the internet is actually really, really difficult

But being anonymous enough to carry out some pretty vile and abusive actions (is Doxing still a thing?) is sufficient... and yes, the FBI can trace you, track you down and all that, but usually it's too late by then. The damage will have been done and as you say, unless you've committed a fairly serious crime, it's usually not something the authorities would even bother taking a statement over.

The issue is that police forces do not have the manpower and resources to effectively investigate, find and prosecute those who commit those acts.

But neither do the abused have the sort of resources or tech savviness to do much about it.
With basic anonimity, you can make someone's like a serious misery... I speak from both sides of that. The worst part is how many people'd behaviour degrades once there's no face-to-face possibility of retaliation...

Personally I think the only sensible approach is to place real pressure on the most commonly used social media sites where this is really an issue

Ah, but should they even have to...?

[maxp779]

Does that read like "If it's unacceptable offline then it's acceptable online"?

I think it's the placement of the unacceptable xD

I read it as "If its then its unacceptable offline online."

[TeePee]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Also, pay your taxes...

[peterb]

I’ve never understood why the anyone thinks the internet shouldn’t be subject to the same regulations that cover any other communication or publication medium.

The only difference is that it gives a voice to those who haven’t had easy access to other forms of communication,other than standing on a soap box in the town square and even that is subject to lawful use, hate speech, speech likely to cause a breach of the peace, etc are all potential offences.

It’s true that the scope of the internet is somewhat wider than the range of the soapbox but the principle remains the same. As was said earlier, if something isn’t acceptable in RL, it probably isn’t acceptable on line.

[peterb]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Also, pay your taxes...

And don’t fly a kite in a thunderstorm

[Corky34]

I’ve never understood why the anyone thinks the internet shouldn’t be subject to the same regulations that cover any other communication or publication medium.

I've always assumed it's because it doesn't follow the same geographical demarcations as normal regulations and other communication or publication mediums, it ignores borders and laws & regulations are wholly reliant on those.

It’s true that the scope of the internet is somewhat wider than the range of the soapbox but the principle remains the same. As was said earlier, if something isn’t acceptable in RL, it probably isn’t acceptable on line.

If we look at that from another countries perspective though it starts to sound less attractive, take Russia, China, or North Korea, should the things they deem as unacceptable in RL apply to people using the internet in the UK or America?

[Rad77]

I want U.S style freedom of speech in the U.K and elsewhere, so this is a big step in the wrong direction for me. Their intrepretation of "safe" and "unacceptable" will always be open to what is politically expediant to that particular moment in time, in my view. It's almost as if American style freedom of speech is considered a dangerous, anarchic concept now, which should be discouraged and stifled at every oppurtunity.. Not a good sign of things to come imo.

I agree completely. The very first thought that entered my head when I read the headline was "because that doesn't sound at all ominous". My opinion did not improve by reading the article itself.

Yep, me too. Much as I'd like to see an end to all the poisonous behaviour online and want sensible laws that really do apply the same standards of reasonable, non-threatening behaviour online and offline, this really doesn't look like that. This looks a lot more like a fight for control between the state and the multinationals.

[Ttaskmaster]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Those who give up essential liberty... The freedom to insult, bully, beast and terrorise others from a position of relative anonymity is neither essential, nor desirable.

However, this might be an interesting read:
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/39024...n-21st-century

Also, pay your taxes...

Mis-terrr Annnnn-derr-sonnnnnnnn.......!!

I've always assumed it's because it doesn't follow the same geographical demarcations as normal regulations and other communication or publication mediums, it ignores borders and laws & regulations are wholly reliant on those.

Most people from all over the planet would still agree that the behaviour of some, 'because it's the Internet', is regarded as highly undesirable and at best would earn you a head-kicking if you did that in person...

If we look at that from another countries perspective though it starts to sound less attractive, take Russia, China, or North Korea, should the things they deem as unacceptable in RL apply to people using the internet in the UK or America?

Such as what?
I can't really think of anything that would be potentially punishable over there, that we wouldn't frown on over here too...

[Ironbuket]

Specifically about the online trolling, bullying and other ‘hate crimes’, there are already plenty of measures to deal with that and we certainly don’t need even more layers added: A) Don’t read what people post about you on the internet, B) Delete and block people that say things you don’t like, C) If you feel harassed gather evidence and take it to the police. Nightmare neighbours can spend years swearing and verbally abusing each other and the police do jack sht, but if they write something hurtful online the police will be around in 2mins?

This is only a problem because the youth today throw their soul out on to social media and crave acceptance then when they dont attain their own overly inflated goals threaten suicide. Since when did going out in public mean you don’t have to be publicly scrutinised? Is this why the looney left are considering making paedophiles legal as it is just an alternative lifestyle and we shouldn’t judge them? The world is going bonkers – bleeding snowflakes ruining it for everyone…

-The near future in the UK-
Knock knock knock
Er, yes hello? Er, yes officer?
Are you Alan Almond?
Er, yes officer. What is this about?
Do you know Sally Smith?
Er, yes we work in the same office
Did you recently respond to her holiday pictures posted on FutureBook?
Erm…
Im here to caution you that if you give another thumbs down to any of Sally’s photos you may be liable for arrest and prosecution for causing hurt feelings online
You don’t have any books in there do you?
Er, no officer
Good, because I don’t want to have to come back with the fire brigade
Now just remember, to always smile, thumbs up everything and no free thought - else I’ll be back to kick your head in