UK eyes sweeping powers to regulate tech

[cirian75]

"The U.K. government has laid two amendments that would let it sidestep parliamentary debate so it can update online safety laws."


Someone explain to me how this is not power mad dictatorship move?


https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-eyes-sweeping-p...

[bigglesA110]

One of those instances where I'd say 'good'. Tech moves too fast for normal parliamentary debate. I think it's prudent to have the ability to act rather faster than normal, especially with some aspects of tech proving itself to be more harm than good.

[s1962a]

Good, implement it and hopefully introduce safeguards, especially for kids. It won't affect the rest of us in the slightest, other than having to prove your age when going to specialist websites. In any case if you care so much about your privacy it's easy enough to get around.

[dbdb]

It sounds very open to abuse.

[No ideas for a name]

I am going to go with 'not good' on this one.
It is putting power - without oversight - in to the hands of people who don't understand the issues.

I do support the regulation of massive on-line companies, who's only purpose is to manipulate their readership and increase their revenues.. however, many other 'publishers' will be affected.

Consider the issue in the USA where one person's so-called 'anti-woke' or misunderstanding DEI, agenda has caused sporting and military 'heros' to have their on-line references erased.

If there is a problem, the government can act. It is only a long drawn out process if the government wishes it to be so.
They could schedule a debate for tomorrow if they so wanted.

Making arbritary changes without oversight sounds a bad response.

[S600BSB]

bigglesA110 said:

One of those instances where I'd say 'good'. Tech moves too fast for normal parliamentary debate. I think it's prudent to have the ability to act rather faster than normal, especially with some aspects of tech proving itself to be more harm than good.

Agree.

[butchstewie]

bigglesA110 said:

One of those instances where I'd say 'good'. Tech moves too fast for normal parliamentary debate. I think it's prudent to have the ability to act rather faster than normal, especially with some aspects of tech proving itself to be more harm than good.

Fair.

dbdb said:

It sounds very open to abuse.

Also fair.

How do you balance those two things out.

[Jasandjules]

Have people still not realised you are now in a dictatorship?

[Ridgemont]

Given the absolute lack of any technical expertise on government benches (wittering on about VPN bans last November) I would firmly say this is a very bad thing.

And it is being done by a PM who makes statements like this (in the linked article)

“ “We’ve taken the powers to make sure we can act within months, not years,” he said. ”

Right. I’m sure some of our favourite autocrats in history would strongly approve….

[valiant]

Jasandjules said:

Have people still not realised you are now in a dictatorship?

Behave.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Terrifying.

[Jasandjules]

valiant said:

Jasandjules said:

Have people still not realised you are now in a dictatorship?

Behave.

Just wait until you see what the CWB bill contains....... Digital ID is here...

[valiant]

Jasandjules said:

valiant said:

Jasandjules said:

Have people still not realised you are now in a dictatorship?

Behave.

Just wait until you see what the CWB bill contains....... Digital ID is here...

And how is that a dictatorship? Is Starmer threatening to ignore the next election results and remain in power? Is he getting measured up for a new generalissimo uniform? No. So it’s not a dictatorship, is it?

[JoshSm]

valiant said:

Jasandjules said:

valiant said:

Jasandjules said:

Have people still not realised you are now in a dictatorship?

Behave.

Just wait until you see what the CWB bill contains....... Digital ID is here...

And how is that a dictatorship? Is Starmer threatening to ignore the next election results and remain in power? Is he getting measured up for a new generalissimo uniform? No. So it s not a dictatorship, is it?

Rule by official dictat isn't exactly fully democratic either.

[grumbledoak]

So, increased power to censor anything online with less delay and even less scrutiny.

Is this going to just be more censorship of Israel's genocide in Gaza, plus now the US bombing of Tehran, or is there even worse in the pipeline that Sir Starmer would want kept out of the news?

[Monsterlime]

Jasandjules said:

Have people still not realised you are now in a dictatorship?

They want it. They welcome it.

If Starmer came out tomorrow and said for children's safety, we will install camera's in every room in your house and monitor you 24/7 those welcoming the law in the OP would be for it. And they would say they have nothing to hide.

[Stu R]

I don't want a bunch of grey haired civil servants dictating what boundaries things they likely have no comprehension of should fall within, and I don't want a system that allows power to be given that avoids transparency, especially when there's no lack of examples for government later expanding powers.

Sweeping regulatory powers over technology should not be delegated to ministers or regulators without full parliamentary scrutiny. Decisions of that magnitude should be openly debated and voted on by elected representatives. Giving these halfwits broad discretionary powers is a short hop from creeping regulatory overreach, legal uncertainty for businesses, and sets a dangerous precedent for expanding executive authority without any real accountability.

Anyone that welcomes or asks for this sort of governance should be very mindful of what they wish for. Liberty is never given back once taken.

[Sporky]

bigglesA110 said:

One of those instances where I'd say 'good'. Tech moves too fast for normal parliamentary debate. I think it's prudent to have the ability to act rather faster than normal, especially with some aspects of tech proving itself to be more harm than good.

I might agree if I thought they'd be using the powers to stop the big platforms from willfully publishing hate and misinformation.

But this is a bunch of billionaire-backed technical illiterates wanting more power that they don't deserve.

[gamefreaks]

s1962a said:

Good, implement it and hopefully introduce safeguards, especially for kids. It won't affect the rest of us in the slightest, other than having to prove your age when going to specialist websites. In any case if you care so much about your privacy it's easy enough to get around.

I'd say that the age verification stuff has already had unintended consequences...

I've had to ask our tech support people to ask customers if they are using a VPN now.

So many customers now using 'free VPN' products which are on malicious IP block lists.

So people are installing all sorts of shady software on their phones and laptops, routing their traffic through dirty networks to bypass the age verification blocks. Thats just asking to get your accounts hacked.

[BikeBikeBIke]

gamefreaks said:

s1962a said:

Good, implement it and hopefully introduce safeguards, especially for kids. It won't affect the rest of us in the slightest, other than having to prove your age when going to specialist websites. In any case if you care so much about your privacy it's easy enough to get around.

I'd say that the age verification stuff has already had unintended consequences...

I've had to ask our tech support people to ask customers if they are using a VPN now.

So many customers now using 'free VPN' products which are on malicious IP block lists.

So people are installing all sorts of shady software on their phones and laptops, routing their traffic through dirty networks to bypass the age verification blocks. Thats just asking to get your accounts hacked.

A club I'm in has club email accounts. The SW regards logins from abroad as suspicious and alerts an admin guy. He's spammed all the time now as people forget to turn their VPNs off after.....