Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#191

Post by nitrogen » Sat, May 20, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

nebabyte wrote: post #190

mattkevan wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, I don't disagree with those parents' concerns. There's a lot of horrible horrible crap on the Internet, stuff that I don't want my child anywhere near. And if I wasn't tech savvy, having the government do it would probably sound like a good idea However, enforcing a nation-state firewall which blocks stuff 'for our own good' – and records every aspect of our lives in the process – is not the right way t…

Right, which is why I said this > If only adblock lists (content subscription in general) were a more common model. You could tell your neighbors they can just "not subscribe to those channels" without affecting others. Hmm Content subscription is a relatively easy model to understand. A stratified net is easier than DIY filtering but still is 'handled by the government' and affords the flexibility of a (somewhat) op…

That's the Overton Window shifting. Not too long ago I recall everyone being horrified by a stratified net, where you had to add your name to a list somewhere to disable filtering. Now that's considered the better option?

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#192

Post by nailer » Sun, May 21, 2017, 10:23 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #181

nailer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To have any "serious" position in modern foreign policy is to support evil. Saying the trial of the Brighton bomber is a "show trial" and protesting it has very little to do with foreign policy. The IRA did not represent a foreign government and the five people killed were neither military nor government ministers. Neither does mourning Fidel Castro, after he's dead. Also: - The mainstream left people you'll find n…

I can believe some people (perhaps you!) genuinely object primarily to Corbyn's viewpoints on foreign policy, Northern Ireland, etc., but much of the media commentary seems disingenuous to me. Do people really think if Jeremy Corbyn took over from Theresa May, it would lead to him instituting gulags in the UK or something? This feels like trying to stretch disagreeing with something he said about the Cold War into so…

I think most people be the primarily to Corbyn's viewpoints on terror (not foreign policy, as we have discussed, most of these groups are not governments), and polling bears this out.

This speaks volumes about his character, and I think to the extent his party would allow him he'd wreck incentive to work, yes. Obviously Corbyn's opponents do note this policies, which are based us an unfounded utopia where everyone can work for the NHS, nationalising rail won't make it as shit as the last the it was nationalised, and police officers cost GBP 7.50 a year.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#193

Post by DanBC » Sun, May 21, 2017, 11:00 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #192

_delirium wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can believe some people (perhaps you!) genuinely object primarily to Corbyn's viewpoints on foreign policy, Northern Ireland, etc., but much of the media commentary seems disingenuous to me. Do people really think if Jeremy Corbyn took over from Theresa May, it would lead to him instituting gulags in the UK or something? This feels like trying to stretch disagreeing with something he said about the Cold War into so…

I think most people be the primarily to Corbyn's viewpoints on terror (not foreign policy, as we have discussed, most of these groups are not governments), and polling bears this out. This speaks volumes about his character, and I think to the extent his party would allow him he'd wreck incentive to work, yes. Obviously Corbyn's opponents do note this policies, which are based us an unfounded utopia where everyone ca…

> and I think to the extent his party would allow him he'd wreck incentive to work, yes.

Please be aware that all the research we have shows the current DWP system implemented by the Conservatives makes it harder to return to work; cause harm; are more expensive than other systems; and are causing death.

We do need to protect public money. The benefit system should help people back to work. The current system does not do that. I don't think any party has properly addressed this.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#194

Post by mal808 » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:32 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #176

basisword wrote: post #36

As much as I expect nanny-state behaviour from the Tory's this has blown me away. I thought the author may be exaggerating so I went and actually read the manifesto. It's only about one page near the end but it reads like something you'd expect from a dictatorial regime. It seems like after cutting us off from Europe via Brexit the government now wants to cut us off from the rest of the world. I just hope internet co…

The problem is that what they've written looks very reasonable. After all, who could disagree with a statement such as the quote below? "It is in no-one’s interest for the foundations of strong societies and stable democracies – the rule of law, privacy and security – to be undermined." The Internet is a dangerous place at times. As anyone who needed the NHS a few days ago is all too aware, modern technologies can be…

"The Internet is a dangerous place at times. As anyone who needed the NHS a few days ago is all too aware, modern technologies can be vulnerable to very damaging attacks."

But this was a failure of the government to fund the required security for the NHS. It was dangerous because the government was complacent, they cut funding to the support that kept the data safe, they used outdated technologies. This incident was the governments fault. And after reading this manifesto, it wouldn't surprise me if they let it happen on purpose to help push this agenda.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#195

Post by Silhouette » Sun, May 21, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

mal808 wrote: post #194

Silhouette wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that what they've written looks very reasonable. After all, who could disagree with a statement such as the quote below? "It is in no-one’s interest for the foundations of strong societies and stable democracies – the rule of law, privacy and security – to be undermined." The Internet is a dangerous place at times. As anyone who needed the NHS a few days ago is all too aware, modern technologies can be…

"The Internet is a dangerous place at times. As anyone who needed the NHS a few days ago is all too aware, modern technologies can be vulnerable to very damaging attacks." But this was a failure of the government to fund the required security for the NHS. It was dangerous because the government was complacent, they cut funding to the support that kept the data safe, they used outdated technologies. This incident was…

But this was a failure of the government to fund the required security for the NHS.

Perhaps, though a lot of the later reporting I saw suggested that the situation was far less clear than it initially seemed. For example, the vast majority of the systems affected by the recent involuntary encryption problems were reportedly running Windows 7. An update had been made available on that platform but only a few weeks earlier, so in some cases it was still in review before being deployed by IT departments etc. For home users affected by similar attacks, there have also been various problems with getting Windows 7 updates deployed in timely fashion, not least because Microsoft borked the Windows 7 update mechanism for a lot of people a few months ago and even systems set to automatically install important updates may have been silently failing to do so.

In any case, this is all rather academic. You and I and no doubt many other people reading these comments on HN might understand the technical issues involved, and we might have reasonable discussions about different strategies for updating systems to mitigate such threats. The average non-geek reading the paper just sees "Your local hospital Emergency Department was closed this week, with ambulances rerouted to other hospitals 20 miles away, as a result of evil people doing bad stuff that made the computers stop working." If the government promises to stop the evil people doing bad stuff so hospitals can carry on helping people, that average non-geek is going to support them, blissfully unaware of either the prospects for success or the unintended (or, more cynically, unadvertised) side effects.