this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023

1 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3051 readers

235 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

Wikipedia could shut down in UK after online safety law passes, Government told (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 1 year ago by Noit@lemm.ee to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] tkc@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This bill needs to be killed. It's just more surveillance wrapped in saving the kids.

I've had people say to me "But what if you're partner was attacked, you would be glad that CCTV/message snooping was there" when debating these topics.

I'm not going to lie, that's hard to argue against, I would if it helped catch them, but I'd rather it didn't happen in the first place. I don't know where I'm going with this...

[–] noodle@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The uk legaladvice subreddit was a great example of why CCTV is absolutely useless.

The police often just won't retrieve it. Either because they have a bunch of other cases they think are a higher priority, or there is too much footage to go through.

When they do eventually motivate themselves to go retrieve it, it has either been overwritten or doesn't show what you need.

[–] tkc@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, absolutely.

Some friends and I were attacked at a taxi rank on a busy high street many years ago. 3 were stabbed/slashed with a bottle and we all had a night in A&E. One has permanent face scars from it.

CCTV showed them getting into a taxi, the taxi driver was found and said they dropped them off at a petrol station.

The police had all that info and got the CCTV from the petrol station, and still couldn't/didn't identify them.

[–] jtb@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The original purpose of the police was crime prevention. They should be out on the beat, not sitting in the office staring at screens. Having police wandering around deters crime.

[–] ClockworkOtter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Really? That sounds like the sort of claim that could do with some evidence to back it up.

[–] jtb@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

First principle: "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

[–] Mane25@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know why parental responsibility to supervise children online needs to be shifted over to websites.

[–] VioletTeacup@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd think it would be simple. If you asked most parents if they'd let their kids run around a mall or supermarket unsupervised, most would say no. So why are they fine with doing just that on the internet?

[–] damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Will you see computers are new (been around for over 30 hears) and confusing and require too much effort to understand, so I won't bother.

[–] guriinii@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Couldn't we just then go to Wikipedia via VPN if this actually happened? Even "age-gated" websites would be able to be accessed via a VPN.

You could just search "how to access uk age-gated websites" and there'll likely be a guide.

Whoever came up with this idea is a moron

[–] spideredd@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Whoever came up with this idea is a moron

I'm actually glad that they're a moron. They'd be terrifying if they were even slightly compotent.

[–] Noit@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The UK government and technically inept internet legislation, name a more iconic combo.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uk goverment and laptops with state secrets

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Ridiculous, the UK government doesn't have any laptops filled with state secrets... they've all been left on trains by now.

[–] noodle@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They'll be going after VPN's next. "Online safety" is just a political football to be kicked around.

The idea is moronic, but the blame lies at the feet of Christian conservatives who vote with their feelings. All of the moral panics of the past several decades have emotive and religious roots.

Another thing to point out, Sunak had one foot out of this country before he became PM, he wouldn't have to know the deleterious effects of any of his or his predecessors actions.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm waiting for them to go after personal VPNs and Tor. I'm surprised they haven't already.

[–] Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I use a business VPN which allows me to securely connect to my works network using only my work equipment. All legit.

I host my own VPN at my home so I can connect into my network while out and about. All legit.

I then do sometimes use a VPN for bypassing regional restrictions. This is the one I assume they would target but I don't understand how.

Surely they can only ban the use of it and not the technology. It would only add to a list of crimes to somebody the police has been targeting already. A bit like in my local area where the only people charged with illegally using an electric scooter are drug dealers.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Oh it will be personal VPN companies they go after. They can't do much about the technology. They will try to block Tor though at some point.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's another piece of unworkable legislation that tries to use fear to give a government a rather nebulous open-ended tool for online censorship. They've been trying to make age verification for porn sites a thing for decades and that hasn't happened yet.

[–] digdilem@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Yes. And there's literally nobody calling for it other than a tiny number of Parenting and Religious pressure groups. Massive waste of government time and our money.