(no subject)
Jun. 4th, 2017 03:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Theresa May: Internet must be regulated to prevent terrorism
Та же самая Тереза Мэй предложила этот закон еще в 2012 году, будучи тогда Home Secretary. Однако, приняли этот закон только тогда, когда Мэй уже была премьером.
Немного о британском законе (уже принятом):
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.Это какой-то совсем уж shameless shit. Уместно будет напомнить, что меньше года назад Britain has passed the 'most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy'.
Та же самая Тереза Мэй предложила этот закон еще в 2012 году, будучи тогда Home Secretary. Однако, приняли этот закон только тогда, когда Мэй уже была премьером.
Немного о британском законе (уже принятом):
[...] civil liberties groups have long criticized the bill, with some arguing that the law will let the UK government "document everything we do online".
It's no wonder, because it basically does.
The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer's top-level web history in real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments; force companies to decrypt data on demand -- though the government has never been that clear on exactly how it forces foreign firms to do that that; and even disclose any new security features in products before they launch.
Not only that, the law also gives the intelligence agencies the power to hack into computers and devices of citizens (known as equipment interference), although some protected professions -- such as journalists and medical staff -- are layered with marginally better protections.
In other words, it's the "most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy," according to Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group.
The bill was opposed by representatives of the United Nations, all major UK and many leading global privacy and rights groups, and a host of Silicon Valley tech companies alike. Even the parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinizing the bill called some of its provisions "vague".