Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

[LexusInfernus 908]

18 hours ago, krbe said:

You say that the dark net will exist as long as there are "servers, internet connections and encryption". What the internet requires in order to operate are connection; and dark net connections can be shut off today.

No they can't. It exists on private servers located on private property operated by private individuals. Unless you know exactly where each server is located and then go to physically shut off those servers, you can't hurt the dark web. And even if you were to try such a thing (which would have to happen on a global scale) you then also need to prevent people from purchasing private servers and hooking them up to the dark web again. But in order to prevent that, you'd need to implement draconian laws that would hurt legitimate internet users and businesses as well. You want to ban people and businesses from buying a simple and innocent piece of hardware because people might use it to hook it up to the dark web to store child porn? 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

LexusInfernus is right (as much as it pains me to agree with him), implementing new laws to crack down on terrorism and child abuse on the internet is unnecessary and a net detriment because it stifles legitiminate use. Besides, the quantity of abuse victims have gone down while the quantity of pedophiles caught be police has gone up, this is because in part the false sense of security/anonymity from using the internet and the ease of copying files. What we need is more police officers tracking down crime (especially cyber crime). Unfortunately, the "leader" of the "free world" would rather seem right while destroying the credibility of law enforcement than allow himself to ever be humble.

 

We live in most interesting times. We might actually tick down to Midnight within a year.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

On 4.6.2017 at 7:26 PM, _Michael said:

Would you rather have slightly less online privacy, or over 30 people killed in terror attacks in the UK in 3 months? 

In the terms of logic 'or' is called an operator. An operator creates a relationship between elements. This can be abused to presuppose relations where there aren't.

Examples:

"Should we cut our hair or should we walk on two feet?"

"Should we legalize drugs or should we promote homosexuality?"

So first you should explain where the relationship between the two elements is you put in question/decission with the operator 'or' - otherwise this may sound like an act of manipulation.

 

[EDIT]

http://kotaku.com/reporting-error-leads-to-speculation-that-terrorists-us-1742791584