Read more.Quote:
Plans for new safety laws to tackle cyber-bullying, exploitation, extremism and more.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Plans for new safety laws to tackle cyber-bullying, exploitation, extremism and more.
Does that read like "If it's unacceptable offline then it's acceptable online"?
I think it's the placement of the unacceptable xD
The UK is becoming a less and less desirable place to live it seems :( This may well be headlined as being about protecting the vulnerable, but we all know that this will be used as another excuse to attack the freedom of the internet, encryption, and technology in general.
A far better approach would be to educate people and yes, let them make mistakes...sure its more expensive, takes longer and ultimately means some people will lose some money or get hurt - but i\'d rather that then continue to erode our freedoms :( The only area where I can see a half argument is for child safety - but that is up to the parents IMO, not the government.
All they need to do now is to define what "unacceptable" and "harm" means in legal terms.
Also why do our MPs think the internet begins and ends with the largest social media firms, it\'s almost like they don\'t understand what the internet is.
"Help, people are expressing themselves and acting online the way they have a right to in the real world, and I don\'t know what to do about it! Oh please will the government save me?"
It's probably because that's where their community talks to them, where they talk to their community, and one of few places they ever need or visit. Besides Google.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
On one hand I think more should be done. Way too many people are disgustingly hateful online, and that behaviour would have stronger repercussions in the real world. On the other hand I'm worried how it will actually play out. People nowadays seem to take a difference of opinion as a personal attack that they need to be protected from, but somehow are allowed to themselves spread hate speech.
Right now I don't think the online world is entirely healthy, but I'm not sure what the ultimate solution is.
While I approve of trying to 'clean up' the internet it's just not going to happen using laws etc, you need to educate people first, primarily the parents who just like with the porn filter don't seem to want to take any responsibility for 'protecting' their children online etc. The parents then need to take responsibility of 'teaching' their children how to behave etc... mind you out my way they're pretty useless at that in the real world too in most cases..
And the 'checks' to see if you're really who you say you are scream of another privacy and tracking nightmare.... considering all the uproar over misuse of data from tracking users that facebook is getting we keep hearing that UK government wants to add more 'tracking' onto the web....
You also have to laugh at the MP's trying to do stuff, their average age is 50 (according to google), so in truth they're not exactly going to be 'current' with how the internet etc works in most cases.
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 opportunity.. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hand
Anyone remember when a UKIP 'politician' had the police force a twitter user take down negative comments? That was before they pass a law that gives them the right to decide what is and is not acceptable online. Great firewall of UK here we come! Child protection is easy to deal with: parents should parent their children! Shocking concept for many I know.
The Great UK firewall, Data Filtration And Analysis Center in the basement of GCHQ.
A secure and access restrictive environment that upholds the value of law and due process, while protecting you from the scum of the earth by cutting you off from the rest of the internet.
Don't believe me .. look at section 3, paragrah 4 of the latest government spooks document.
Oh you don't have access .. well I wonder why, it's not like it's a secret ?
Having seen what toxic melting pots of malice most places turn into when they're unregulated, or just allowed to run free, I no longer trust sites to self-police.Quote:
Originally Posted by EN1R0PY
HEXUS is one of those few places that do it well and in very carefully balanced measure.
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.
We do our best!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
:embarrassed:
:hexlub:
They don't understand anything that involves technology, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I think this idea of online security and a sort of moral code could be taught in schools. Most children will easily outwit their parents technically. Also I dislike this idea of spying on children which a few adopt. I think extremist, violent material should be removed from say YT and popular sites. Data collection should be regulated(even NHS sells I believe).
I think everything is restructuring and the internet is seen as a threat to the established orders. I read the 'Cyberpunk manifesto' the other day, it's of it's time.
So this is the new angle is it. Little bit more fluffy on the outside than the last one, just as bitter and crooked under the fur.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
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.
1984 is coming, it's just a bit late.
On one hand the UK seeks to ban terrorist media while allowing such media that shows drone strikes killing 'terrorists'.
Typical of government IT projects, always late. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Friesiansam
It's just propaganda in the truest of sense from both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrinkly
People are so easily offended these days... dread the next generation :help:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
But neither do the abused have the sort of resources or tech savviness to do much about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
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...
Ah, but should they even have to...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
I read it as "If its then its unacceptable offline online."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Also, pay your taxes...
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.
And don’t fly a kite in a thunderstormQuote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjtI 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hand
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
However, this might be an interesting read:
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/39024...n-21st-century
Mis-terrr Annnnn-derr-sonnnnnnnn.......!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Such as what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I can't really think of anything that would be potentially punishable over there, that we wouldn't frown on over here too...
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
Citation pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironbuket
A) It's more that other people read what other people are saying about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironbuket
B) Blocking them yourself doesn't stop them from broadcasting it to the world and making unwitting bullies of everyone else.
C) Too late, damage done.
Bullying in person means you have to be strong enough to bully the other person and not fear getting smacked in the face for it. Having remote anonymous access to public broadcasting means you can terrorise, bully, defame and generally abuse someone who doesn't even have internet access.
The Fappening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironbuket
Private moments from private accounts, not even publicly thrown out on social media, force-hacked and plastered all over the world.
Yes, someone got sent down for it, but this was a massively high-profile case. Other non-celeb people have been hacked, doxed, etc and their lives ruined, and not just through debatably-inadequate cybersecurity, either.
Heck, just look at how the newspapers have always been able to destroy a celebrity just from ambiguously phrasing a mere rumour... which has often proven to be completely fabricated, anyway. But by then it's too late and the damage has been done.
You seriously want everyone to have that kind of access, to spew their vile opinions and spread even more hatred?
What starts as a snowflake 'hate crime' ends up as a recruiting tool for all sorts of insidious things.
Since you yourself are there, in person, for reals, able to address the issue and defend yourself directly. Generally you only attract that kind of scrutiny if you're doing something unusual anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironbuket
I've done no verification other than what I've picked up over time in news snippets but don't places like Russia, China, or North Korea have laws against homosexuality, political speech, criticising their leaders and things like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Also highly undesirable is not the same thing as illegal, although some of the crazy laws and court cases we've seen in recent years do make me wonder at times.
Well if they're able to come and actually arrest me for being gay in their corner of the internet, they're welcome to it... I actually forgot about that element of it. I guess that's perhaps indicative of how far we've come, in that I didn't even think about homosexuality being illegal somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
IIRC, there is/was some EU legislation that made it a crime to criticise the EU. I remember it being discussed around 2010, down the pub! So not that different from criticising their leaders....
Tough, then. Cultural difference. Accept it and embrace the multi-culturalism that is the Internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Nah, they'll just spread novichok on your door handle...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Either that or people need to accept that just because you (the collective you) disagree or find something undesirable doesn't mean we (again collectively) should just shutdown or ban those undesirable things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I don't have one... and am usually wearing thick bike gloves anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
But we can also restrict them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Just because we can doesn't mean we should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
We could always employ a non-profit organisation to take a census...Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
It should certainly be a consideration, if only a regional restriction. Already individual sites take measures tyo ban, block, restrict and remove certain content, because the people who frequent those sites don't want it... in the same way Motorcycle MC Colours, Football shirts and similar things are banned from certain venues, or persons with criminal records are prohibited from travelling to certain countries. This is not really any different in principle.
Why would we take a census when we can simply ignore the loonies....*adds Ttaskmaster to ignore list*Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
How dare you apply a restriction to the internet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should..... :p