13 ms·
Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated after London terror attack
- f_allwein 9y agoWhat? This was a relatively small incdent and police killed the attackers within eight minutes of being called ( http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-london-bridge-and-borough-market-statement-by-commissioner-244608 http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-london-bridge-and-... ). How dare any politicians use this to promote their agendas?
- NetStrikeForce 9y agoAnd she said this in a very politicised speech just after cancelling campaigning for the elections, so no one can publicly reply. May and her team are despicable human beings.
- marcosdumay 9y ago> just after cancelling campaigning for the elections Wait. Can she do that? By herself?
- noir_lord 9y agoNo but if she says the Conservatives have cancelled it for the day and the other parties don't they'll get crucified by the right wing press (particularly print). So you are buggered if you do respond and buggered if you don't.
- justincormack 9y agoUKIP have not cancelled campaigning...
- Normal_gaussian 9y agoUKIP are very right wing, are already villified by the left, and who rely on incidents like this for their conversions. They stand to lose nothing by doing so.
- marcosdumay 9y agoWhat a great way to make the radicals popular. They will certainly gain a lot by being the only ones disagreeing.
- NetStrikeForce 9y agoSorry my words were not clear, glad someone else clarified for me :)
- dualogy 9y ago> How dare any politicians use X to promote their agendas? Welcome to planet Earth! I gather it's your first visit?
- jimnotgym 9y agoAfter the recent attack near parliament Amber Rudd (home secretary) wasted no time at all in blaming WhatsApp, because the guy used WhatsApp. He could have used WhatsApp to send a cat meme to his mum for all we know. It is disgusting the way they are prepared to use these events to push their totalitarian agenda
- smoyer 9y agoShe's actually been saying this for quite a while but nobody's listening. Now she's using the incident to bolster her argument. It's a pretty ridiculous claim to state that this type of monitoring will help - "these terrorists have safe spaces on the Internet". Smart terrorists will find a "space" to communicate where big brother is not listening. If you eliminate one, they'll simply move elsewhere but there's no practical chance of removing them all.
- rocqua 9y agoI am against may's plan, but pushing terrorist propaganda into the dark would be a good thing. The harder it is to find for authorities, the harder it is to find for impressionable people. The argument is not to keep terrorists from communicating internally, but to keep them from publishing.
- infodroid 9y agoThis sentiment is common but misguided. For one thing, "impressionable people" will always seek out taboo information. Banning jihadi messaging isn't going to make it less appealing to them (when they find it elsewhere) or to make it disappear from the internet (there's always a way). So this is an ineffective strategy. It is better to target the root cause, which is that jihadi ideas are clearly attractive to a large group of European youths. Just look at the numbers of Europeans travelling to Iraq, Libya, Syria to fight, to sacrifice their lives for this ideology. You can't dismiss all these people as "impressionable". As far as I can tell, they are otherwise normal people who are as rational as you or me. Sure, there are some truly impressionable people out there. And we should prevent them from being radicalized. But it's like with sex or drugs... We talk to our kids about difficult subjects so they are well-informed and are not so naive and easy to manipulate. But we don't talk about jihadi ideology. Why is mainstream society unwilling to challenge their ideas and expose them as wrong? You can't defeat an ideology by pretending that it doesn't exist, which is what you're effectively doing when you censor it. It's a knee-jerk yet cowardly way to avoid confronting the actual problem. And the problem isn't going to go away unless you confront the ideology head-on. Radicalization isn't the inevitable outcome of being exposed to these ideas but is rather the result of losing an argument.
- exodust 9y agoSmall incident? This was a coordinated attack by three terrorists. More than 40 injured. Truck and knives used as weapons on Saturday night crowds. Look at the intended carnage. Police response time has nothing to do with evaluating the seriousness of the crime. Think about the organised networks behind these attacks, and the "routine" nature they are becoming, and then perhaps contribute ideas to help prevent them.
- coldcode 9y agoHow many people died last week in the UK from fentanyl overdoses? How many from alcohol involved traffic accidents? More than this. Why is terror more terrible than unexpected death by other means?
- tempodox 9y agoPut simply, it's much easier to argue that you must sacrifice all liberty for protection against terror than against drunk driving. Terror serves your oppressor's needs better than anything else.
- freedomintruth 9y agoIf you want to know why political and religious violence is worse than drug overdose and why we have to resist it, look at Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. Although we can say it was Bush then Obama who destabilized the country by removing the tyrants, in the tyrants' absence, religion-influenced political struggles (ie. Sunni vs Shiite, Islam vs Kurd) blew the countries apart, and continues to blow the countries apart. So drug addictions can be bad, but religously-motivated wars are worse because they will destroy everyone. Even stable countries like Saudi Arabia is not immune, and people are worried that the more radical elements there will take power if the country loses its wealth, wealth which is used to pacify the population.
- freedomintruth 9y agoDo you think these terrorists were just going to stop at killing a few people? "Gee, I think I will kill 10 people then go home." Seriously? My guess is they would keep on killing as many as they could, just as they tried to enter the stadiums and concerts to do maximum damage, just as they locked in the Bataclan to kill as many as they could, etc, etc. In which of these events did they kill a few people then went home?
- UK-AL 9y agoI thought the whole point of these sorts of attacks is that they arn't organised online.
- geogra4 9y agoIt is. But that doesn't stop people from playing on fear to get what they want.
- cwilson 9y agoYou know it's not really about terrorism when stopping people from viewing pornography is also part of the proposed agenda.
- hutzlibu 9y agoIn allmost all terrorist attacks in europe(also 9/11), the police had alarming data about the attackers before and in some cases even recieved explicit warnings about the attackers - yet the attacks still happened. But still every politician demandes MORE surveilance, even though they allready had all the data. So maybe they need more personal. But not more surveillance. It would not surprise me, if this case is similar.
- imglorp 9y agoConclusion: they don't want the surveillance to stop terrorism. It's against someone else.
- otaviokz 9y agoIt's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who can see this obvious thing.
- marcosdumay 9y agoYou are far from the only one. It must be for political use, as there's nothing more those people care about.
- johansch 9y agoDevil's advocate: They have lots of non-actionable data on thousands of individuals ("individual X is a potentially violent extremist but hasn't committed any actual crimes yet"). One could make an argument that what they are after here is to get actually actionable data ("individual X is plotting an attack next week together with individuals Y and Z").
- amriksohata 9y agoIt's not the internet, internet propoganda is the final chapter in the process, the bed of thorns is laid by the Mosques in the UK and the dumbest ones are then influenced.
- cirrus-clouds 9y agoA lot of people in the UK don't know what surveillance powers the government has enacted into law. Nor do they know the plans the government has in their 2017 manifesto. I created a campaigning site to dissuade people from voting for the Conservatives in the election - I know that will be frowned up on here, but I wrote an entire section on the site to explain (in laypersons terms) what surveillance powers have been legislated and proposed by the Conservatives: https://www.dontvoteconservativeuk.com/#security https://www.dontvoteconservativeuk.com/#security
- deepGem 9y agoIt does look like either the Labour or the Tories favour surveillance heavily. It makes me wonder, do the leaders of these parties actually believe that such surveillance can ensure security ? Or, is it that most of the common people see surveillance as a good security measure and the political parties are just appeasing these people. I can't help but extrapolate this situation to the scenario depicted in "V for Vendetta".
- thedlade 9y agoThe public aren't asking for any of this. They only use these cases as a sort of opportunity window to introduce laws that ban various types of porn
- zigzigzag 9y agoThere is also the opposite problem. The public aren't asking for it not to be done either. Internet surveillance isn't a hot button political topic either way. However, terrorism is. Hence the problem.
- cantagi 9y agoTheresa May is the politician behind the nasty snoopers charter and is likely to win the upcoming election. She is particularly dangerous to internet freedom in the UK
- prawn 9y agoThe Prime Minister said introducing new rules for cyberspace would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and that technology firms were not currently doing enough. ... "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed - yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide,” Ms May said. Is it fair to say that the seeds for these attacks were first sown well before the emergence of the technology companies she's criticising? I remember reading of a private suggestion by someone in (US?) foreign affairs that this broad wave of terrorism is "birds come home to roost".
- krapp 9y agoGiven a choice between a free net and a failed state, I will choose the net every time.
- xaa 9y agoI just don't understand the UK on surveillance and free speech issues. In most ways, the UK seems more sane than the US, but they have these absurd libel laws and take any and every opportunity to cry "regulate the internet" when anything bad happens involving the internet. Notably, there was no call for "we need to increase our regulation of cars or knives" after this incident. Any UK resident have insight on why the UK is so backwards on these issues? It is pretty obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge of computers that terrorist "safe spaces" (assuming that big internet companies knowingly provide them, which I find dubious) are kind of impossible to remove or regulate. The ability of the internet to provide encrypted, point-to-point communications is a pretty core feature.
- blibble 9y agothe Defamation Act 2013 fixed a lot of the problems with the libel laws however I really don't understand the surveillance thing
- yarper 9y agoIt's unlikely we could have more strict laws on knives in the UK. It's illegal to carry them and illegal to own many types of them (e.g. flick-knives). Essentially if you have a knife on your person, and you've not got a damn good reason (e.g. it's a breadknife and you're on your way to work at a bakery) you're committing a crime. Cars are basically impossible to legislate against. What they did is already illegal. So to answer your question - what's left when everything is already illegal?
- peterwwillis 9y agoThey could require places with the highest pedestrian traffic have elevated walkways for crossing streets, and reinforced barriers between the roadway and pedestrian traffic. Or ban cars and stick to trolleys, buses, trains. At some point, after we've exhausted all options, we might have to ask ourselves why so many people want to kill random strangers, and then deal with that.
- zigzigzag 9y ago
- yarper 9y agoThis is the party that is also open about wanting to ban encryption.
- amarant 9y agoI'm sorry to break it to you Theresa, but the internet didn't attack anyone. I wish people didn't lose their ability to think rationally in these moments.
- sbuk 9y agoI don't know about the internet being regulated, however it is clear to me that our politicians idiotic utterances need a serious amount of regulating.
- satysin 9y agoDidn't take her long. May seems to really hate internet freedom for some reason.
- mamon 9y agoTheresa May probably ordered those terrorist attacks herself - she's the one who will benefit the most from them, using them as pretext for regulating Internet and otherwise limit civil rights. Pretty much the same way Erdogan organized coup against himself. EDIT: Also, this is not a coincidence that this attack happens just a few days before elections: this will earn her few percentage points of votes as she will now pose as the only one able to fight terror.
- indy 9y agoThat's a pretty sick accusation mere hours after a terrorist attack.
- coldtea 9y agoYou are not supposed to insinuate such a thing in a western democracy. Those things never happen, those in power are ethical and bounded by laws. And even when they do, and come up in courts (as has happened e.g. in Italy in the 70s and 80s and other places), well, that was in the past, and this is now. Oh, and Asia, Latin and Central America, Africa are totally different places, with inferior cultures, which explains why such things happen there all the time. /s
- coffeedoughnuts 9y agoI think assertions of this kind either need to come with proof, of which I doubt you have any, or some form of credit to the writers of the latest season of House of Cards as you seem to be lifting your half baked conspiracy theories right from Netflix.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- peterwwillis 9y agoWe should be regulating 2-ton steel boxes hurtling down the road 2 feet away from pedestrians at 50mph, not the fucking internet.
- vixen99 9y agoAnd regulating DIY stores selling knives? Our local one here could provide for a brigade of militias. This is not the solution. I doubt the murder squad in London thought they'd have much a chance to get away and in general these ISIS-style assassins are fully prepared to die for their belief so how about an examination of what that belief is, where is comes from and on what authority? Sensitive stuff! And we can be pretty sure this won't be happening.
- wand3r 9y agoI'm worried AI will start killing everyone if it trains on this data. It's going to see: - video games cause violence - the internet causes violence - guns cause violence - drugs cause violence - etc And draw some conclusion like food causes terrorism. I jest; but only a bit...
- panzer_wyrm 9y agoAnd I thought they used a car... She may have been a competent operative, but as a politician she is bottom of the barrel..
- ilanco 9y agoTheresa May should educate herself before making statements like that. Any person with half a brain and has some knowledge about how the internet works, knows that it's not possible to regulate it entirely. For example, any image can be made to contain an encrypted message, without anyone ever knowing it's there [1]. This will just be another blow to everyone's privacy if she gets her way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
- sbmassey 9y agoHas she specified anywhere what 'the internet must be regulated' might mean? There's a huge difference between having Facebook-and-Twitter type organisations share stuff with the police, and trying to manage every possible means of communication.
- r721 9y agoI assume that's what "Tory manifesto 2017" is about? https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/05/tory-manifesto-2017/ https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/05/tory-manifesto...
- coldtea 9y ago>The Prime Minister said introducing new rules for cyberspace would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and that technology firms were not currently doing enough. We had widespread uncatchable for years (or decades) terrorism in the 60s and 70s (from RAF in Germany and Brigate Rosse in Italy, Action Direct in France, to Carlos, and tons of others) without the internet. Hundreds of bombings, kidnappings, executions, etc. Where does the BS idea come that if you track the internet you will stop modern terrorism?
- sbarre 9y agoYou don't actually think this is about stopping terrorism do you? This is naked and shameful opportunism.
- zigzigzag 9y agoEh? UK engaged in mass telephone/fax taps during the Troubles with wild abandon. http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html The inability to monitor suspects telecommunications is a very recent phenomenon. Governments had that ability more or less from the moment Bell started building his system.
- coldtea 9y ago>The inability to monitor suspects telecommunications is a very recent phenomenon. First, for actual suspects there never was any inability to monitor their telecommunications. (and any legal inability never meant much to the agencies doing it). This is not about this (targeted taps), it's about tapping everyone and at all times. Which they also do, but now they want to make it official and sanctioned.
- joncrocks 9y agoTo play devil's advocate.... Saying that we've 'had terrorism for ages' is like saying that we 'had war for ages' and so firearms didn't change anything. I have no idea what the 'official' idea is around trying to lock down 'safe spaces' on the internet, but the idea that the reduction of the availability of certain material may reduce the impact of certain material isn't beyond the realms of reason. We legislate against all sorts of things that should have no effect if everyone were a level-headed rational actor. In days of old, the only way you could recruit people to your cause was likely in person. Now you can do this in a much more distributed way over the internet. When a certain (admittedly vanishingly small) proportion of the population is susceptible to certain arguments, for whatever reason, with lethal consequences, then is suggesting that those arguments should be suppressed a bad idea? (note: this is not the position I hold)
- deepnet 9y agoDeliberately weaking public security is entirely the wrong approach. Banning encrytion makes the British public more vulnerable not less. And whitelisting all posts and uploads quells the utility of criticism, opinion and opposition. It seems the government don't trust the population. Teresa May is entirely wrong in her approach and one suspects utterly ill advised.
- aluhut 9y agoSo they exceeded all the possibilities to make "security" tighter in the UK and now try to force their paranoia on the rest of the world? I wonder how the internet will jump down the camera to stop a car.
- Crontab 9y agoUsing "safety" as an excuse for surveillance and censorship is a popular action from the Fascist Playbook. I just hope that those in the U.K. don't fall for it.
- lhnz 9y agoIf it was possible to regulate the internet for the average person, would it be right to regulate it? From what I read, the police arrived within 2-5 minutes after the attack started. The only way to pre-empt it would be to have information about the terrorist's plans beforehand. Encryption on phones is widely available to the average person, and this makes it very difficult to stop terrorists from planning attacks. In the grand scheme of things, terrorist attacks do not kill very many people. However, they brutalise public discourse. Every time this happens it draws us closer to authoritarianism: loss of privacy, mass internment, ethnic cleansing. The conversation after attacks seems to be becoming more and more sarcastic and bitter on one hand, and counter-establishment/authoritarian on the other. For example, photos of Sadiq Khan telling the population that these attacks are 'part and parcel' of living in a major city; and the mockery of people saying "we don't yet know if this is a muslim". I'm pro-free-speech and pro-encryption, but I am not sure whether grinning and bearing it is really an effective weapon against terrorist activity, considering its ratcheting effects on public opinion. So, if we don't ban encryption, what are we going to do?
- k-mcgrady 9y ago>> I'm free speech and pro-encryption, but I am not sure whether grinning and bearing it is really an effective weapon against terrorist activity, considering its ratcheting effects on public opinion. So, if we don't ban encryption, what are we going to do? I'm in the same position. It's getting harder to stick to my principals. The way I'm trying to think about it though is this: banning encryption and destroying privacy will not fix terrorism. Governments should be focusing on actual solutions to the root cause. Maybe we should stop blowing up the middle-east. We need to work for stability in those regions. Ban encryption and the terrorists will find another avenue to communicate and we'll lose freedoms for nothing.
- lhnz 9y ago> Maybe we should stop blowing up the middle-east. I agreed with this in the past but I was happy to see ISIS driven back from the territories they conquered. I wish we had never gone to war with Iraq and I wish we hadn't cheered during the 'Arab Spring', however that is now in the past. I care about what we do now and whether it can disrupt a violent ideology that is currently rapidly spreading from one person to the next across the world. The less violently it can be disrupted the better.
- thenomad 9y agoFor those who want to read her exact words, full transcript: http://time.com/4804640/london-attack-theresa-may-speech-transcript-full/ http://time.com/4804640/london-attack-theresa-may-speech-tra... Quote: > We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online. Other interesting quotes: > "While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations." > "And if we need to increase the length of custodial sentences for terrorist-related offences - even apparently less serious offences - that is what we will do."
- nilson 9y ago> We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online. It may appear that terrorists are planning something but in reality it is probably unplanned copy-cat behavior.
- miralabs 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence
- rocqua 9y ago" This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. (May 2015) This section needs attention from an expert in Islam. (October 2015) This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (October 2015) This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (November 2015) "
- regulate_this 9y agoIt's still high time to withdraw any and all support from the people who have to gain from terrorist attacks. The likes of Theresa May and the war criminals she probably hands with, the "security industry" that is working so hard to make the world less secure for the innocent and more secure for those who want to hide their guilt. Te real way to curb terrorism and other crime is to have more sane parents who have more time for their kids, more affordable education, that sort of thing. War, poverty, etc.; what happens today determines the tragedies of the next 30 years. We'd need to be very different, much better societies for at least a few decades for any real change. But the people like May don't want that. They want more of what uproots us, and they want power that can be used nilly-willy, both against criminals and anyone else. Notice how you can't use "honest parents who give their children hugs and answer their question" against innocents the way that "fights crime". Don't tell me it's about resources, it's about intent which in turn results from dysfunction and psychopathology. They need to control the narrative because a mirror would kill them, that's the gist. Be the mirror.
- rocqua 9y agoIt's not just individual conditions like upbringing, poverty or education. There is a problem with segregation. Not any form of mandated segregation, but emergent segregation due to social constructs. Racism, latent or otherwise, makes minorities feel more comfortable with people of their own ethnicity. Whilst that same racism makes the majority want to move away from the minority. Obviously, this segregation isn't the only issue. There are more minorities that appear to have self-segregated than just the Arabic/Muslim. In the UK, e.g. Indians, Eastern-Europeans, perhaps black people. Those minorities seem to have a lot fewer terrorists, if any.
- jl6 9y agoI'm a bit out of the loop on these sorts of discussions so apologies if this is retreading old ground, but... let's asssume I want to engage in some form of population monitoring or profiling. Based purely on available facts, what actually is the best indicator of propensity to commit terror attacks? Is it being Muslim, spending time on Islamist websites, being a marginalized single man, something else, or is there in fact no pattern distinguishable from random noise? Surely this must have been studied extensively?
- ksmsjm 9y agoSo what if someone thinks that GTA multiplayer has enough ways to communicate each other without transfering a word (for example driving a taxi means tuesday and changing a weapon you can direct message to ceratin person in team). This can be done in any video game that has multiplayer.
- r721 9y agoRelated: https://www.propublica.org/article/world-of-spycraft-intelligence-agencies-spied-in-online-games https://www.propublica.org/article/world-of-spycraft-intelli... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-spies-online-games-world-warcraft-second-life https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-spies-onli...
- whatupmd 9y agoMay's policies around the internet are boarding on authoritarian. Not sure how you will stop people from driving cars in the capital city... Nevertheless, its interesting to see this flame bait by independent so quickly. Who owns that paper anyways? It has a .co.uk domain?
- eternalban 9y ago"New international agreements should be introduced ..." The governing 'muppets' worldwide agree with her. The ruling clique is in mortal fear of open communication between the global serf class. They all agree on that, 'entertaining' muppet conflicts notwithstanding.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tasubotadas 9y agoIs this insight based on your sound science-backed research?
- reitanqild 9y agoIt is more or less obvious: everyone of these criminals belong to a very specific subset of people. The probability of me or any of my relatives going out and blow people up is 0.0 <lots of zeroes> x. The probability of someone in that subset doing the same is small but absolutely non-zero. I feel sorry for friendly Muslims.
- wayn3 9y agoa comparable to "muslims" would be "all the christians". if you want some examples of christians blowing up the shit out of each other, try ireland. I dont think that relatives of Eric Harris would have ever said "oh yea, that kids trouble. going to shoot up a school some day". pretty lame argument youve got. there are clearly more radicalized general idiots out there than there are radicalized muslims.
- freedomintruth 9y ago>> there are clearly more radicalized general idiots out there than there are radicalized muslims. It's not the Christians in Belgium, France, Middle East, Philippines, England, US and Egypt who are blowing people up and killing people. The violent conflict of the Middle East has spread to all these other places, and it coincides with the migration of Muslims together with the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIS. The IRA were not on the scale of Islamic terrorism we have seen in the past 10 years, and which can even become more significant. The pattern of the Irish Catholic-Protestant conflict was more limited in scope. What we are seeing with Islamic terrorism is much larger and more bloody to EVERYONE, not just between Sunni-Shiite, but extends to Jews, Kurds, Yazidis, Christians. So no, Islamic terrorism is not comparable to "all Christians". To do so is either blindness or pernicious propaganda on your part. Check out "ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape" at New York Times on the rape of Yazidis.[1] They are praying before they rape and after they rape. If this story is true, it indicates that ISIS is not a mere political movement, but is also bound to its theology. The BBC reported on the recent bridge attack of a witness who said the attackers said "This is for Allah."[2] edits: added links, fixed typo. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-ens... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40148737 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40148737
- tempodox 9y agoI can't wait until AI finally deserves that name and completely replaces human politicians. It can only be an improvement.
- freedomintruth 9y agoThanks for this comment. In the debate regarding Islamic terrorism, in the West liberals tend to ascribe it to poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunities, poor integration. But when Islam-related violence is regarded in the Middle East, people blame it on Bush and Obama for removing the tyrants who kept the internal religious conflict under control. So why are people surprised that May, or anyone else, would copy the tyrants' methods of reaching for autocracy in dealing with these issues? And the irony is that liberals would wash away the common element that is prevalent in the terrorism in Europe and the conflict in the Middle East, which is in fact Islamic fundamentalism. Having lived in Europe for a few years, seeing what has happened in the last 10 years has me thinking that the insane violence in the Middle East will be imported into Europe and destroy the Europe that I admired. Thank-you Merkel.
- jimnotgym 9y ago>In the debate regarding Islamic terrorism, in the West liberals tend to ascribe it to Well I am a Western liberal and I believe much more often we have blamed it on foreign policy, amongst other things. You go on to make offensive gross simplifications/generalisations i simply don't recognise in liberals I know. >Thank-you Merkel. If you don't know why Merkel is liberal when it comes to immigration then i don't think Hacker news is the place for you
- freedomintruth 9y agoIn a comment below, you asked if the solution is to ban books, news stories. Are you suggesting banning comments is legitimate? Lots of liberals have blamed terrorism on poverty and lack of opportunities to integrate. I've been following this issue over the last 3 years, and that's what I have seen. I don't know how much you have been following the attacks, but in Europe there have been horrendous stories about rape, gang rape, terrorism from Muslim migrants. Since earlier you mentioned you were from Ireland, did you know about the gang rape of children in Rotherham? What about the sexual attack in Germany during New Year's a few years back? This stuff is getting very common these last few years. I'm ok with immigration and aiding vulnerable groups, but if it brings the kind of problems we are seeing, when would you say enough is enough? How many more stadiums, night clubs, street cafes, streets need to be attacked before people acknowledge that there is a problem? The attacks so far have been mitigated because there was security: if there was no security during the attack on the Stade de France, the casualties would have been much higher, for instance. I've lived in Europe and travelled freely, but the violence we are seeing are real facts I find concerning. I am not suggesting violence as a response, only to see the problems that exist, understand the causes. Lest you think this is only an Islamic terrorism issue, I also find the violence coercion in the history of Christianity to be problematic. But Christianity is right now not the cause of the violence we see. And if you have solutions, what are those? edit: why does this comment not show up? Is there a censorship thing here?
- TheCabin 9y agoCan someone explain to me why this link has such a low ranking on HN, already? It's pretty fresh and has lots of upvotes. I was trying to post it, because I didn't see it yet.
- thesagan 9y agoI was wondering the exact same thing.
- wdr1 9y agoI fear the US isn't behind. Both Trump & Clinton called for Internet censorship during their campaigns. Scares the crap out of me.
- Fifer82 9y agoCan we please not vote this fucking boot back into power?
- makecheck 9y agoLegislators sure seem to assume that legislation can fix anything but it’s a dangerously ignorant attitude to have about technology. There is no single governing body, no single country and usually not even a single access point for Internet data. Even if a country seems to create what sounds like a decent law for that country, there is no way to apply that law to everybody. It’s also particularly ironic when a restriction is proposed for dealing with people that are probably already untouchable anyway. Also, “the Internet” is not just what you can see on a web page, and screwing with traffic invariably damages everything else. (Ever see HTML returned in places where it wasn’t supposed to be there? Thanks, ISPs.) If your law can’t even reach the people it’s supposed to reach and your implementation is shoddy on top of it all, you’ve just caused a problem that you didn’t have before due to paranoia. We should probably think of the Internet like the ocean: it connects everybody, maybe there are areas we can control for added safety, and in the end we all know in International Waters there are some shady things going on that we can’t do anything about. That’s life.
- Corrado 9y agoWhat if the terrorists start using plain old mail? Or the telephone? Or just meeting up in a cafe? Do all of those things need to be regulated? Should they open everyone's mail and read it? After all, you could be writing bad words. Should we just have everyone in the country "check in" every week to make sure they aren't doing anything unusual? Where does it stop? I thought the UK was very forward looking in their responses so far to the violence. Things I've seen on TV have lead me to believe that standing up and not being afraid is the best medicine for this type of action. Maybe I was wrong.
- vorotato 9y agoI mean good luck I guess Theresa.