
Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet - anon1385
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/theresa-may-wants-to-regulate-the-internet
======
k-mcgrady
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 companies stand up the UK and refuse to do
business here. I'm perfectly fine with losing access to the internet for a
short period of time if it shows the government we won't let them interfere in
this area. I perfectly understand prosecuting people for harassment online or
requiring social media companies to work with the government to prevent that
but regulating the entire internet and trying to get the rest of the world to
do the same via an international treaty is terrifying. Particularly when the
point of the regulation is controlling the people's access to information and
enforcing Theresa May's backwards, old fashioned, morals.

If you care about this stuff you only have a few days left to register to
vote. You can do it online in a few minutes I believe.

~~~
kbart
_" I just hope internet companies stand up the UK and refuse to do business
here."_

I wouldn't bet my money on it, since UK ISP companies were quite happy
following government's agenda (see porn filter and Internet history
collection).

~~~
Retr0spectrum
My current ISP (ask4) doesn't filter any of the sites that they're supposed
to. I can't comment on the history collection, of course. This is not a
recommendation of ask4 however - the connection is relatively unreliable and
slow/oversubscribed.

~~~
pmyteh
There are others. Mine (idnet) doesn't filter and is very good. Andrews &
Arnold is famously hacker-friendly and high quality and also doesn't.

Of course, when it becomes a legal requirement things might change.

------
mattkevan
As a British citizen, this makes me sick to my stomach.

However, I'm probably in the minority.

A few years ago I went to a debate about the Internet and how it affects
families, and it was interesting and rather scary to hear people's attitudes.

It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was,
asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does.

Despite good arguments being put forward for freedom and openness, the crowd
voted overwhelmingly in favour for heavy censorship and controls.

And now, thanks to Theresa May's band of paternalistic fascists, they're going
to get their wish.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(broadcasting)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_\(broadcasting\))

~~~
iDemonix
I think this is a similar problem to that of net neutrality: a majority of
people don't understand how the internet works (in any way, shape or form),
and therefore are easily swayed by the loudest parties - often the ones trying
to make a profit, not protect the internet.

~~~
doubt_me
It's worse. Way worse.

People don't want to know. Or they know and act anyway

------
kristianc
It does make me laugh as a British citizen when the government touts the use
of evidence-based frameworks and its ' nudge' unit and then employs a blunt
instrument such as this which is purely legislative and flies in the face of
all available evidence.

Since the advent of the internet and the accompanying rise of internet porn,
sexual irresponsibility, teen sex, rape and divorce have all been in decline.
That's to say nothing of the arguments for encryption and against backdoors,
which have been well trailed in these parts before.

Luckily, as the Chinese example shows, it just doesn't work, though I did find
it amusing the time I caught a long haul China Air flight from Beijing with
'Free Wifi' where there was only one website available, and it was the website
for China Air.

~~~
paradite
I'm curious as to which "Chinese example" do you have in mind that doesn't
work?

Edit to reply to your wifi issue: you need to use that one website to login to
access the "full" internet.

~~~
imron
The Chinese example where they have tens of thousands of people monitoring
internet content and spend millions per year on filtering and blocking
technology - and it can all be circumvented with a VPN.

~~~
paradite
Interesting. So on one side people are bashing the the level of censorship by
the government and how people are unable to exercise certain rights.

On the other side the same people are laughing at its ineffectiveness and how
trivial it is to circumvent them and access information freely. One of them
must surely be wrong?

Btw, censoring of keywords and blocking of websites are two different issues.
VPN solves the latter, not the former.

~~~
viraptor
No, both can be right. Censorship can be ineffective, but circumventing it may
still put your name on some list. And once you do get charged with something,
that fact can easily come up.

Also, VPNs are usually leaky. You can trivially identify many protocols, even
under encryption. There was some researcher recently (sorry, can't find the
link) identifying which movie is being streamed over encrypted link. Some
networks are better at injecting noise than others - Tor has some benefits
here for example.

~~~
paradite
So basically you are arguing that censorship is still effective in the sense
that it serves as a deterrence and the base for other forms of tracking. And
that would certainly harm freedom of speech in certain ways. So you are still
supporting the idea that censorship is effective.

~~~
viraptor
> in the sense that it serves as a deterrence

Absolutely not. I argue it's effective, as in, it provides an extra tool for
the government to go against you if you cross some gov. defined line. I think
it provides little deterrence. Same as the law against murder is more for
definition of the crime and punishment than for deterring people from killing
each other.

------
garblegarble
That insightful line from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri comes to mind, "Beware of
he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams
himself your master"

~~~
zebrafish
I find it necessary to make a distinction here; I would deny you access to my
personal information.

------
kbart
Heh, of course it can't go without "terrorists" trump card:

 _" the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for
terrorists to be able to communicate online"."_

It's very sad to see UK becoming closed, police state.

~~~
insickness
But think of the children!

~~~
kbart
I guess they are saving this as a secret weapon for election next month.

------
wanda
> If elected, Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and
> objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy" – and crack
> down on Facebook and Google to ensure that news companies get enough
> advertising money.

The last agency that should decide what's reliable or objective is the
government. Despite voting to remain within the EU, I was optimistic about
Brexit. Change is good. I'm English/Irish. I never expected to say these
words, but I think I'll go to Europe.

------
halomru
> If elected, Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and
> objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy"

That's the kind of thing you usually hear from dictators. I hope she remembers
to give citizens the same rights online and offline, not only the same
restrictions.

------
pmontra
> "Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern
> our lives offline"

Of course they should, but if there are already those offline rules what
prevents them to already enforce those rules online? Example. If hate speech
is illegal offline in the UK, if somebody reports me for online hate speech
I'm already in troubles. No special rules are needed.

What are they aiming to, automate the enforcement? What could possibly go
wrong?

> The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy,
> like the one currently paid by gambling firms.

Business friendly ;-) The Brexit then this.

~~~
DanBC
> Example. If hate speech is illegal offline in the UK, if somebody reports me
> for online hate speech I'm already in troubles. No special rules are needed.

UK law enforcement is having trouble getting US court orders, because the
crime in the UK isn't a crime in the US. Thus people commit crimes in the UK,
using US companies, and are evading UK law enforcement.

Mostly this doesn't matter so much (certainly not enough for Conservative's
measures to make sense), but there are a few people making credible death
threats or organising vigorous campaigns of harassment, so it'd be useful if
there was a way to stop it happening.

------
robteix
"The plans will allow Britain to become 'the global leader in the regulation
of the use of personal data and the internet', the manifesto claims."

It is so sad that a government thinks this is something to be proud of.

------
mstade
Every day there are news coming out of the U.K. that just makes me even
happier that I left it. This is no exception.

~~~
Retr0spectrum
Which country did you leave to? I'd like to get out of here ASAP.

~~~
corford
Suggest you pick one in Europe while it's still easy to do :) I think most EU
countries let you apply for full citizenship after being there a while (e.g.
France lets you apply after 5 yrs, less if you're married to a French
national).

~~~
lb1lf
What about Scotland? (I am serious!)

While we're veering OT fast, I really can't see Scotland staying in the Union
once Brexit is complete.

There's still going to be strong ties with England, given all the toing and
froing over the centuries - so I'd expect it to be quite easy for someone
English to stay in Scotland almost regardless of what deal is eventually cut
with the rest of the EU.

~~~
nul_byte
I would honestly hold off on Scotland until its known how things will work
out. Scotland's budget deficit is now 10% of GDP which is larger than that of
Greece. To be a member of the EU it requires a deficit of no more than 3% of
GDP.

~~~
arethuza
Worth noting though that the budget deficit of all countries varies a lot over
time and that the budget deficit as % of GDP of Scotland now is actually less
than that of the UK in 2009-2010 and I didn't hear much about the UK being
evicted from the EU because of that.

~~~
k-mcgrady
2009-10 was still the middle of the worst global financial crisis in a
century. The rules for being allowed to join the EU are strict - once you're
in you don't have to keep following the entry requirements.

------
discombobulate
I'm not sure how long it's going to take for people to realise: the government
is _not_ your friend. They don't want to help you. They want to control you.
You are their property. You are registered and you are farmed. Like animals.

Ask them nicely to stop, and they well smile back and reply 'think of the
children'. Behind their dead eyes are the schemes used to enrich themselves at
your expense. Rule after rule applied. Each more insidious than the last.

Welcome to dystopia. Enjoy your stay.

~~~
nebabyte
> I'm not sure how long it's going to take for people to realise: the
> government is not your friend

Slow your roll there m8. Government as an aggregate will of a people _can_ do
good. (I say this because a libertarian utopia would basically endgame into
gang leaders oppressing people in a similar manner.)

"The government" when it is just the people is probably the best way to
collectivize problem-solving efforts. (Which is why people have not and will
never "learn" that lesson you are hoping they will.) As with anything, it's
going to extremes that fucks us.

~~~
zebrafish
Government as an aggregate will of the people is just a hivemind. There has to
be push and pull; give and take. The 51% cannot completely neglect the wishes
of the other 49%.

However, on the other hand, I agree with you. Who's to say that private
conglomerates have our best interests in mind moreso than the people we elect
to represent us?

In order to maximize personal freedoms, I believe that there can be no utopia.
Debate and compromise and the messiness that comes with those two are
essential.

~~~
nebabyte
> The 51% cannot completely neglect the wishes of the other 49%.

In these cases, the only non-gridlocked solution is fragmentation. It's the
survivorship bias - the only issues that continue to paralyze a region are the
ones that _couldn 't_ be decided one way or the other.

In the US' case, this would be granting certain issues to be within states'
power to decide upon, and incentivizing people to move and live under the
system that works for them. Ultimately, though, that won't happen - because
the people who believe in these issues (be they taxation, abortion, LGBetc
rights, etc) are in an all-or-nothing mentality whereupon changes have to be
enforced federally.

America will never admit to itself that it's _too_ diverse and that its
various extremes cannot be reconciled, so it's stuck moving at a glacial pace
with the eventual hope that the 'average' will move in the direction of
progress.

Which is all well and good as long as you don't mind the periodic risk of
government shutdown or terrible policy precedents being set by
lobbyism/financed-campaign promises in the interim.

------
DarkKomunalec
> will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be
> able to communicate online"

Why just online? Isn't it about time we stop letting car-makers and
construction companies get away with helping terrorists? I say all cars and
rooms in houses should be fitted with mandatory listening devices, constantly
transmitting to government servers. Encrypted, of course, with a court warrant
required for the police to decrypt the data. That should put those privacy
extremists' fears to rest.

Edit: In case of misunderstanding - this was sarcasm, meant to illustrate
where we'll get to if we pass laws solely using the metric of "might save a
few lives".

~~~
monk_e_boy
It's interesting that there is a huge section of the UK population that this
sort of thing appeals to. Out of touch with technology, terrified of change,
disconnected with the younger generation.

So many people vote without knowing the party policies. "My dad voted Tory, I
vote Tory."

~~~
vixen99
So you're confident you know the minds of a 'huge section of the UK
population'? Well done! Watch out because a lot of organizations will now snap
you up in return for mouth watering sums.

~~~
monk_e_boy
What other explanation do you have to the Tories winning by a landslide? The
majority of voters like them I.e. a huge section of the UK population)

A large percentage of people under 25 don't vote.

------
wanda
Honestly, it's like Theresa May watched the first hours of _V for Vendetta_
and _Children of Men_ respectively, and mistook them for instructional films.

~~~
mdekkers
You forgot "Read everything Orwell wrote as a starter", specifically
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language)

------
pjc50
.. while at the same time removing some of the few restrictions that exist on
what can be posted in the newspapers (which are definitely neither reliable
nor objective).

Remember which newspapers are cheering this stuff on. They're usually the same
ones that brought us Brexit.

------
gerjomarty
I really don't like where these manifesto pledges are going, and there isn't
really much we can do at the moment to stop a Tory majority, going on the
current polling numbers (yes, I know polls can be deceiving).

I think the only way we can combat this in people's minds is to come up with
concrete examples of how it will adversely affect their privacy or daily
Internet routines.

------
hardlianotion
This is something else the UK could outsource to China - these guys have the
state-of-the-art on monitoring and blocking technology. Something is very
wrong here.

~~~
felipelemos
And even there it does not really work if you have the means to circumvent it.
And guess what? The terrorists have, but the everyday man have not.

~~~
topranks
In fairness we all have access to the tools.

Understanding and implementing them right can be tough though.

------
Accacin
Absolutely disgusting. Even if, which I don't, I supported the Tories I could
never vote for them with this policy.

------
mtgx
I've been saying this for sometime, but to me UK's role model has seemed
obvious since David Cameron took over: China.

UK wants to become the West's "China" in terms of surveillance and censorship.
Cameron has been very friendly towards China, he liked what he saw was
happening there and wanted to bring it over to the UK.

This would be similar to when Nicolae Ceausescu visited North Korea, and then
wanted to install the same kind of dictatorship in Romania, because such level
of obedience from the populace looked very appealing to him.

Remember when Western countries used to decry the "Chinese/Iranian/etc model"
? Whatever happened to that idea? I think the U.S. hasn't even accused China
of human rights abuses in recent years (that includes Obama's last term, too).

------
vacri
It's good to see May's government is really focused on those all-encompassing
Brexit talks it needs to do.

> _" We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even
> unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,"
> the Conservatives write._

Because they've done such a bang-up job with folks like UKIP and things like
Page 3 girls? Is there any other English-speaking nation that has had such
open pornography in a daily newspaper?

As for hate speech, the English make a sport of deriding the Scots, Irish,
Welsh, French, Spanish, Polish, Pakistanis, Americans, and who knows how many
others. Getting rid of hate speech _properly_ would take out a core part of
the national character.

------
wonderwonder
The British appear to be working hard on implementing a Putinesque information
and media control policy. Just instead of acting openly totalitarian they
attempt to play the role of mother that knows whats best for all the poor
silly adult children. They are forcing their moral values on everyone whether
they like it or not.

This is ironic coming from a state that is so loath to offend that they
ignored Rotherham and similar incidents.

They are actively working on killing their financial industry via brexit and
this policy if implemented will go a long way towards accomplishing the same
in regards to their technology industry.

------
iDemonix
The more and more Theresa May talks about the internet, the more and more I
think I should start a VPN business, it's going to be a big sector in the UK
once the great firewall of the UK goes live.

~~~
sangnoir
It is obvious to me that VPNs will also be declared illegal (for users and
proprietors) in short order. This will be in addition to ISPs being asked to
block VPN connections and log and report any VPN connection attempts along
with the associated user account. If your organisation has a 'legitimate'
requirement for using VPN, your VPN software will have to use some government-
backed key escrow where they can decrypt the traffic, for "National security
reasons".

~~~
topranks
This is a scarily realistic prospect.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
It's the execution in particular of some of these things that annoys me as
much as curbing freedom. All of the burden is typically put on companies,
often without even understanding the challenges or considering their size.
Anyone aware of the EU VAT rules for digital sales? The smallest of startups
is tasked with herculean accounting and software requirements. To the point
where some people just shut up shop. It's like some governments just want
everyone to be poor and do nothing.

------
sjclemmy
I am as left wing and anti-authoritarian as they come. I read the digital bit
in their manifesto and I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's simply
stating the laws of the land should be respected and reflected in the online
landscape. What's wrong with that?

Britain is a deeply divided, but pluralist country, where the majority are
conservative. This is broadly in line with what I would expect that majority
to suggest or want.

~~~
rainforest
They challenge the long-held idea that people on the internet are capable of
dealing with things they don't like or the government wouldn't like them to
see. They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime.

I see a lot of discourse on the internet in the same way it happens in a pub.
There are very little boundaries to the beliefs someone admits to sharing, and
presence of a regulator to check that nothing illegal is being discussed
doesn't sit right.

~~~
sjclemmy
> They challenge the long-held idea that people on the internet are capable of
> dealing with things they don't like...

However long-held those beliefs are, they pale into insignificance in the
context of the nation state. The internet is not its own realm. It exists in
the context of nation states. Nation states have laws that the people of the
nation should obey or suffer the consequences.

> ...the government wouldn't like them to see

Britain has a long history of authoritarianism, enacted through its class
system. Successive governments promote authoritarian policies because it
appeals to the conservative majority.

> They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

> I see a lot of discourse on the internet in the same way it happens in a
> pub. There are very little boundaries to the beliefs someone admits to
> sharing, and presence of a regulator to check that nothing illegal is being
> discussed doesn't sit right.

I think a lot of people behave as though the discourse they engage in on
social media is as if it is in the pub, but it is simply not the case. The
existing laws regarding on-line communication encompass anything that is
'published' online and people do get prosecuted.

~~~
rainforest
I think you're right to point out that the people in the UK deserve what their
elected representatives bring upon them. As their manifesto points out, they
want to be world leaders at bringing the internet into parity. As you say,
prosecutions for publishing silly comments do happen as a consequence of this
process.

I don't think anyone's surprised by the proposal, just part of the small
minority who would rather not have the government intrude on their space. From
a practical standpoint the legislation risks making social networks
prohibitive to run, and will make it financially and/or legally intractable to
do things like run forums or possibly any website that publishes news or has a
comments section.

Any move by a government to regulate the internet will always be viewed
through the lens of this minority as an infringement on a space where ideas
should be free, controlled by an actor that shouldn't be trusted and can't be
removed (i.e. no Second Amendment) if it's caught abusing its powers.

>> They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime. > Could you
explain what you mean by this?

Online hate speech has been prosecuted when it was targeted at a dead person.

> I think a lot of people behave as though the discourse they engage in on
> social media is as if it is in the pub, but it is simply not the case. The
> existing laws regarding on-line communication encompass anything that is
> 'published' online and people do get prosecuted.

While true, this is an example where the line isn't concrete. If a pub is full
of people being unpleasant or talking about things one doesn't want to hear,
one can simply leave. Targeted abuse is different to being uncomfortable about
topics one is voluntarily eavesdropping on.

------
Lev1a
Hmm, what would it take for the major "Internet companies"(which are primarily
American) to "cut the cord" to Britain rather than complying with this kind of
outrageous overreach?

Genuinely curious.

EDIT: Also,

> The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a
> person posted when they were under 18.

sounds quite literally insane, censoring the speech of people just because
they are minors?

~~~
klez
> > The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a
> person posted when they were under 18.

> sounds quite literally insane, censoring the speech of people just because
> they are minors?

No, how I understood it, it means that _you_ can decide to have stuff deleted
if you wrote it when you were a minor.

------
te_chris
I want to feel like the HN crowd are reading this wrong. That it's about
things like going after market power of FB/Goog rather than suppressing
speech. But then you remember that it's Mrs. May's Manifesto.

------
jacquesm
I wonder if they've thought this through. That's one more reason the Scots
will have to exit the union. Right now is not a good time to rock the boat
like this.

------
tempodox
The end of freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.

And after the next terrorist attack, they'll say it wasn't enough of a lock-
down.

Einstein was right: Human stupidity is infinite.

------
Zpalmtree
Virtually all the parties in the UK have stupid big brother policies like
this, and the ones which don't are complete jokes in most general policies.

~~~
s0l1dsnak3123
The liberal democrats, the SNP and the Green parties (in England & Wales, and
in Scotland) do not support policy such as this.

------
rajadigopula
a) Tor/VPN b) A fake ID c) Bitcoin d) Mesh networks/Torrents Some tech. that
aid in privacy/anonymity yet to be invented etc.

It's impossible to regulate the internet. The common people will be at
disadvantage.

Running awareness campaigns are the best tool the govt. got which will be much
more positive & effective than these non-nonsensical unethical monitoring and
controls.

------
lois
This is preposterous. how on earth will they enforce what people post on the
internet? Blocking access to sites via ISPs is one thing, but am I going to be
fined for blogging with an unconservative/anticonservative inclination?

This is just going to push new business away, as if the UK wasn't already a
sh*thole for startups...

------
MrZeus
This _is_ the document (and page) you're looking for... <waves hand>

[https://s3.eu-
west-2.amazonaws.com/manifesto2017/Manifesto20...](https://s3.eu-
west-2.amazonaws.com/manifesto2017/Manifesto2017.pdf#page=84)

------
hysan
I wonder what's her stance towards the Great Firewall? This seems like the
first few steps towards building something similar to it. It's quite scary to
think that governments are slowly becoming more like China recently.

~~~
lovemenot
403 (Maydrian's Wall)

"FUD in channel - content cut off"

------
coldcode
I hate to repeat myself, but 1984 was not a how-to manual. At least in the US
we have the pesky Constitution, which at least makes this sort of thing more
difficult, but of course not impossible as we are seeing with the FCC.

~~~
rybosome
Yes, thanks to heroes like Ajit Pai and the hilariously double-speak inspired
"Restoring Internet Freedom Act", we are continuing to lay the foundations for
serious, widespread censorship.

------
tajen
> Internet companies would also be asked to help promote counter-extremism
> narratives

Funny, from the party who promoted Leave for the Brexit, a position which is
usually considered as "far right".

------
gunnyguy121
And the UK falls further down the rabbit hole of totalitarianism

------
noja
Hm. Cost/benefit analysis anyone, ever? Cost of massive restrictions of what
people can write and therefore think versus the comparatively tiny benefit?

~~~
pjc50
Doesn't apply to right-wing parties.

I'm entirely serious - the press have a default frame that left-wing policies
need to be costed but right-wing ones are assumed to be fiscally responsible.
Rules only apply to progressives. The logical conclusion of this in the US is
Trump, the man to whom no rules apply.

------
nannePOPI
What's the point of doing anything on the internet if governments can come at
any time and destroy everything with a single click?

I feel depressed.

------
johneth
I really don't see my future in the UK. It's pretty depressing living here at
the moment.

------
djhworld
Do brexiteers honestly endorse this?

------
dsun176
Hard to say. But we need more censoring to mainstream the usage of TOR

------
shmerl
I guess she wants to build New Oceania. Disgusting.

------
gat-bitty
the headline and article link for this post keeps changing and its comfusing
me

------
lovemenot
The very vaccine vs. versilimitudinous, vacuous vermin is voting.

------
Pigo
I must admit I thought it was going to be about SJW types wanting to free us
from harmful independent thought. I was surprised, but then I don't have a lot
of context for British political parties.

~~~
timecube
Turns out that in the real world, conservatives are far more dangerous for
your freedoms than "SJW types".

~~~
Pigo
I guess I'm misinterpreting all these antifa videos. Here I thought it was
just a human thing, and both sides have the capability of pulling dumb,
dangerous ideas out. No it's just conservatives right?

~~~
_delirium
One important difference is that Theresa May is leader of a major western
country, while Berkeley students you saw in a video on the internet aren't.
This makes one of them a much more pressing threat.

True among people on the same "side" of the political spectrum too. The
Tories' brand of authoritarian conservatism is much more dangerous than
Westboro Baptist Church, for example. You can find Westboro advocating plenty
of outrageous things, but they aren't in charge of a country.

