Theresa May Wants pass controls on internet radicals

[Futility Personified]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/26/theresa-may-measures-combat-terrorism

I know the context is to target Jihdis, but I can see this one being passed around the internet to mean a lot of anti-state stuff. Definitely a knee-jerk to Woolich. Also, cutting down not on violent extremists, but extremism in general? I can see this leading to some sort of judicial repression against people who have no faith in our "democracy".

[Comrade #138672]

I am fearing the same thing. Although it will probably not be a threat to us yet.

[Paul Pott]

That's probably the trend we'll see in the west over the next decade. After all, if you're not a liberal, you follow a "political religion".

[helot]

I'm not worried. They're inept, they struggle to monitor 4000 people. Being able to watch the internet activity of millions is just going to overload them.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That's probably the trend we'll see in the west over the next decade. After all, if you're not a liberal, you follow a "political religion".

This is a trend we've seen for a while, since some time before 11/9. This is only one of the current events they temporarily use to cloud the issues relating to establishing property and control schemes for new spheres, dividing the new commons up into well-mannered plots.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Labour and the Conservatives could unite to push through the controversial communications bill despite Lib Dem objections, a former Tory leader says.
The bill, allowing the monitoring of all UK citizens' internet use, was dropped after a split in the coalition.
But Lord Howard said David Cameron had "to act in the national interest" following the Woolwich murder.
Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said Labour would work with the government but only on a revised bill.

(BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22673156)

[brigadista]

while they dismantle all services....

[svenne]

Of course it's crap. But it's also propably the best argument against the (honestly speaking) extremely stupid idea that you can make nazism or nazis "illegal". Every law the state makes against religious extremism and/or political extremism of the right, will sooner or later be used against the left.

[Sea]

Of course it's crap. But it's also propably the best argument against the (honestly speaking) extremely stupid idea that you can make nazism or nazis "illegal". Every law the state makes against religious extremism and/or political extremism of the right, will sooner or later be used against the left.For more specific stuff like nazism I wouldn't think it would be a problem. I'm fairly certain we can trust the bourgeoisie to determine who is or isn't a nazi, just like we trusted them to determine if Bartolomeo Vanzetti and OJ Simpson were equally evil. To hell with class interests, I'm sure they couldn't screw up a little thing like that! Oh wait...

Besides, everybody knows that internet radicals are the most dangerous radicals of them all. The Revleft Liberation Front and I could spring into action at any moment! Better run to the panic room! :rolleyes:

For someone with the intelligence of a wireless modem this Theresa May character seems awfully unaware of how the internet works. If these decisions were made by people on the right (or rather left) side of the class divide, this sort of censure might be acceptable. However, I would most certainly not want a capitalist-controlled state to be making these decisions. I have no worries about the banning of nazism on this board, but I highly doubt that the BA would use that as a precedent for banning the sinister communist conspirators. I can't say the same for any government that I'm aware of.

The problem isn't that actions are being taken against hate speech, the problem is who's taking them.

That said, so as long as people have a reason to be nazis, or "terrorists", or even communists and anarchists, it's going to stay a thing. Material conditions and class interest trump laws every time. I'm sure I don't need to give any examples of this.

[Brutus]

This would be largely ineffective. I suppose she has only just found out what a computer looks like

[RebelDog]

This would be largely ineffective. I suppose she has only just found out what a computer looks like

They know exactly what they are doing and they wouldn't be doing it if it were ineffective.

[BIXX]

They know exactly what they are doing and they wouldn't be doing it if it were ineffective.

They (theoretically) couldn't even keep me from downloading a torrent. how do they expect to keep me from saying anti-state statements on the Internet? I mean, keeping someone from downloading a torrent should be infinitely easier. So if they can't enforce that I doubt they could enforce bans on what we say over the Internet.

Also I can't believe how worried they are about what is said on the Internet.

[Q]

There is indeed a trend going on towards more control, more supervision on everything that happens over the net. Simply saying "well, what do they know about computers" doesn't fit the bill anymore. There are technologies that counter it though, you can read more about them in the anonymous usergroup (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=726).

[RebelDog]

Also I can't believe how worried they are about what is said on the Internet.

They are probably not worried at all. I would imagine their real concern is to configure information on activists, protests, strikes, any dissent against the state. In my view its unlikely that the real application of this technology is to monitor radical islamists, thats the pretext. If the British government had any concern for the safety of its citizens then it would have listened to the advice of the security service when it told them invading Iraq would increase the likelyhood of domestic terror attacks.