Supra MKIV OC General Election Poll

[JasonR24]

Looks like the turkeys are voting for Christmas

[JasonR24]

Liking labours policies more and more, seems the papers are pandering to the Tories. Stupidly. I won't vote labour or Tory but this is the closest I've ever been to voting labour

[j_jza80]

On the face of it I also like some of their policies, but they don't stand up to much scrutiny I'm afraid.

 

They seem to assume that the businesses and the wealthy will just stand by and take this substantial tax hit - they won't. As was proven when Hollande tried to do exactly the same thing in France, the overall tax revenues will drop significantly. Businesses will be forced to cut back, and the extra costs will be passed on to consumers, fuelling inflation and creating unemployment. The wealthy, who can afford the best financial advice, will use it to avoid these extra taxes, and as was the case with France, many will simply leave, reducing revenues again.

 

Then there's this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-communist-andrew-murray-stalinist-a7737151.html

 

Combined with this:

 

This paints a pretty disturbing picture of what is going on in the Labour party. Far from being newly reborn as social democrats as Corbyn makes out, I think Communist groups are using Labour as a vehicle to gain influence and power.

 

I'm out of this election anyway, I would have voted Tory, but I'm not voting for anyone who wants to bring back barbaric fox hunting.

[Karl M N]

Oh dear

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/05/diane-abbott-suffers-another-disastrous-interview-massively/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg

 

 

How does someone like her even hold down a job? Incompetent and racist. Labour would probably gain voters by chucking her out.

[Annabella]

Now that Cons are trying to shoe horn in the biggest stealth tax in history (makes the Blairite era look small) I'm either not voting or dare I say voting Labour for the first time, need a bit of balance of power here - Theresa May I think has shot herself in the foot with that policy, it smacks of we're going to get a landslide so we can do what we like. Think carefully, almost ALL people that own a home will have assets (inc home) over £100k, think it's 9 out of 10. Really encourages you to work hard and own your own home and lose it to the Government if your ill towards the end of your life. Your kids will not get an inheritance. So the poor and middle class get poorer as per generation. Shocking really.

[el_bandido]

I won't be voting conservative after the recent statement of intent for essentially turning the UK internet into a police state service.

[The Raven]

I won't be voting conservative after the recent statement of intent for essentially turning the UK internet into a police state service.

 

Nord vpn ftw

[Al Massey]

I won't be voting conservative after the recent statement of intent for essentially turning the UK internet into a police state service.

 

F**king damn right our internet needs to be monitored!

 

Especially after what has just happened in Manchester!

[el_bandido]

I absolutely disagree. Having a government decide what can and can't be said online is going way too far; it's authoritarian and will not end well. The conservatives have also banded around the idea of banning encryption and VPNs, which not only betrays an utter lack of understanding about how most online businesses operate, but is exactly the same as reading all of my post. I do not support this and never will, it is sacrificing freedom for security and it is a massive step beyond the line of personal boundaries. As long as this is Conservative party policy, I will not be voting for them again.

[Al Massey]

I absolutely disagree. Having a government decide what can and can't be said online is going way too far; it's authoritarian and will not end well. The conservatives have also banded around the idea of banning encryption and VPNs, which not only betrays an utter lack of understanding about how most online businesses operate, but is exactly the same as reading all of my post. I do not support this and never will, it is sacrificing freedom for security and it is a massive step beyond the line of personal boundaries. As long as this is Conservative party policy, I will not be voting for them again.

 

So it's perfectly fine for terrorists to discuss their next attacks because it's their right to do so??

[el_bandido]

As pointed as your phrasing is, if you want to make it that black and white, yes. Sacrificing the privacy of every individual in this country simply because a very small group of people are using those services for nefarious purposes is not a fair trade.

 

Would you support the complete strip searching every single person who went through an airport, into a club, large gig (or whatever) just because one person might have a weapon?

 

What happens if it's discovered terrorists discussed an attack in a coffee shop, should we legally mandate that Costa has to record every conversation everyone has in their coffee shop?

 

When does it stop?

[el_bandido]

It's also utterly ridiculous to introduce "government only" backdoors into this kind of software, because if the government can use them, so can anyone else with the required level of knowledge. You completely remove any security.

[formatzero]

Was a bit undecided on how to vote,but this recent attack has made up my mind for me!

[Al Massey]

As pointed as your phrasing is, if you want to make it that black and white, yes. Sacrificing the privacy of every individual in this country simply because a very small group of people are using those services for nefarious purposes is not a fair trade.

 

Would you support the complete strip searching every single person who went through an airport, into a club, large gig (or whatever) just because one person might have a weapon?

 

What happens if it's discovered terrorists discussed an attack in a coffee shop, should we legally mandate that Costa has to record every conversation everyone has in their coffee shop?

 

When does it stop?

 

What privacy?

Why do you think that any activity on the internet is private or should be private?

 

A small amount?

I'd say it was a large amount of nefarious purposes.

 

Complete strip is taking it too far, but pat downs by trained security and bag searches is fine.

 

Terrorists may have discussed it in a coffee shop, but I bet most of that was sorted via messages and the internet.

 

Now I'm not advocating we have people listening 24/7 or have the government use a back door to attain the details, but in this day and age of things happen, like this, then a force should be able to get the details of any other activists which could help in the capture of those involved.

[Annabella]

What privacy?

Why do you think that any activity on the internet is private or should be private?

 

A small amount?

I'd say it was a large amount of nefarious purposes.

 

Complete strip is taking it too far, but pat downs by trained security and bag searches is fine.

 

Terrorists may have discussed it in a coffee shop, but I bet most of that was sorted via messages and the internet.

 

Now I'm not advocating we have people listening 24/7 or have the government use a back door to attain the details, but in this day and age of things happen, like this, then a force should be able to get the details of any other activists which could help in the capture of those involved.

 

That is true and needed, just need Mossad to crack the code, for example whatsap and use when necessary....

[el_bandido]

That's the problem though, you can't just have it when necessary. If you crack end to end encryption, anyone who is capable of reading that can go and read every conversation that's ever been encrypted by it. There is no possible way you can have that facility on demand.

 

And yes, I believe people should have the right to privacy. There are currently ways to shield your communications using VPNs, encryption and so on and it is not justifiable to take that away just because there are bad people in the world. The government should not, nor should they ever, be allowed the capacity to spy on every individual in the UK as a matter of course. If that means there are communications they can't read, they can catch people using other means. As someone a lot smarter than me once said, never sacrifice freedom for security, as you'll end up with neither.

 

Unless you have 100% trust every government to come from now until your death to never abuse these powers, and that these back doors will never be exploited by other parties, it is not a reasonable option.

 

Also, if you think that the number of terrorists using encrypted communication is "a large amount" as a percentage, I think you're probably underestimating the size of the internet.

[Al Massey]

Well it's clear other means aren't working.

 

Underestimating the size of the internet?

 

So you think people aren't using the internet to conduct these crimes?

Aren't using phones/apps and emails to talk to each other and pass intel?

 

Technology has moved on where it makes it easy and safe for most of these to do just that.

Gone are the days of using pigeons to send letters.

[el_bandido]

The fact that people are using the internet to commit crime is not a significant justification to grant powers to read and record every communication sent in the UK, or what can be said online, or what kind of news people are allowed to read. You can keep (apparently intentionally) missing the point and rewording this to try and reiterate the apparent need for big brother all you want. It is not a satisfactory trade to surrender the availability of privacy for all in the name of catching a few. There are also plenty of people out there doing good things under the protection of anonymity.

 

I've never once said that these things aren't happening, only that legally banning encryption, VPNs and snooping on the entire populace is not a reasonable price to pay.

[Al Massey]

The fact that people are using the internet to commit crime is not a significant justification to grant powers to read and record every communication sent in the UK, or what can be said online, or what kind of news people are allowed to read. You can keep (apparently intentionally) missing the point and rewording this to try and reiterate the apparent need for big brother all you want. It is not a satisfactory trade to surrender the availability of privacy for all in the name of catching a few. There are also plenty of people out there doing good things under the protection of anonymity.

 

I've never once said that these things aren't happening, only that legally banning encryption, VPNs and snooping on the entire populace is not a reasonable price to pay.

 

I'm not missing your point.

 

Just as I've said we shouldn't be reading or recording everything on the internet.

 

But once something happens or if suspicious, then certain forces should be allowed to go through your history and messages, once granted approval.

 

But why do you think that internet use is your right and you have a right to freedoms on it?

[el_bandido]

Because it's the ultimate learning, communication, commerce, political (and so on) and free speech platform. What right does the government have to arbitrarily deny me this facility? The UN has also issued a (albeit non-binding) resolution that access to the internet is a human right. More importantly than that, it's the hallmark of a free society. It's also a slippery slope to go down if we just allow governments to remove freedoms currently available to us. By the logic of your last statement, you could ask what right we have to any freedoms.

 

I've already said that what you want is not technologically possible; it would be ideal if it was, but it isn't. Anyone calling for backdoors to encrypted communications betrays an utter lack of understanding of the technology. What the Conservatives are proposing is the ability to read, record and/or implement censorship to absolutely every piece of information available on the internet in the UK. This is the thought police turning into a reality. I'd also like to know how you can say other methods aren't working and then say "once something happens that's suspicious". If other methods aren't working, how are they going to know it's suspicious without the ability to decrypt and read absolutely everything?

 

I do not want to live in a country where I am only allowed to see the news that's "approved" by government (and industry, by extension). This is the perfect platform for brainwashing and propaganda. Justifying the removal of these freedoms by saying we're being attacked is the oldest trick in the autocrat handbook.

 

Edit: To make a more concise point, the greatest result of the invention of the internet is the removal of government control of information, on a global scale.

[Al Massey]

Because it's the ultimate learning, communication, commerce, political (and so on) and free speech platform. What right does the government have to arbitrarily deny me this facility? The UN has also issued a (albeit non-binding) resolution that access to the internet is a human right. More importantly than that, it's the hallmark of a free society. It's also a slippery slope to go down if we just allow governments to remove freedoms currently available to us. By the logic of your last statement, you could ask what right we have to any freedoms.

 

I've already said that what you want is not technologically possible; it would be ideal if it was, but it isn't. Anyone calling for backdoors to encrypted communications betrays an utter lack of understanding of the technology. What the Conservatives are proposing is the ability to read, record and/or implement censorship to absolutely every piece of information available on the internet in the UK. This is the thought police turning into a reality. I'd also like to know how you can say other methods aren't working and then say "once something happens that's suspicious". If other methods aren't working, how are they going to know it's suspicious without the ability to decrypt and read absolutely everything?

 

I do not want to live in a country where I am only allowed to see the news that's "approved" by government (and industry, by extension). This is the perfect platform for brainwashing and propaganda. Justifying the removal of these freedoms by saying we're being attacked is the oldest trick in the autocrat handbook.

 

Edit: To make a more concise point, the greatest result of the invention of the internet is the removal of government control of information, on a global scale.

 

 

Manchester bombing is proof other methods aren't working.

He was known to the police and security forces.

 

Yet still managed to find out how to make a bomb and targeted children and actually blow them up.

 

Yeah the current method is great.

 

So you condone China, North Korea perhaps for lack of freedoms?

I am sorry, but I don't see the internet as a right.

It is a luxury.

 

Maybe what I would like is impossible, I don't know how it all works, but I do agree that having free access the whole time by a government is wrong.

[el_bandido]

If the current method/toolset wasn't working, the UK intelligence services wouldn't be foiling multiple attacks a year. Using acts of terrorism to justify the complete removal of digital personal privacy in the name of security is ridiculous. It also won't end, as terrorism isn't possible to defeat 100% of the time and no matter what tools you have available, someone, somewhere will evolve a new one that catches you by surprise.

 

You could find out how to make a bomb from a chemistry text book and a bunch of DIY electronics; both things which have entirely useful purposes in other contexts. Are you going to record every single book that someone reads now? Are we going to blanket ban 3D printers because someone printed a gun with one?

 

How exactly am I condoning China and North Korea, when I'm explicitly stating I don't want the Conservatives to turn us into that kind of government run internet police state? That's exactly what I want to avoid.

 

 

In an ideal world it wouldn't be a problem, as there would be no terrorism. But in the real world, I will not vote for a party that wants to submit every citizen of the UK to that level of intrusive scrutiny, while leaving the door open for anyone else who is tech savvy enough to have a look as well.

[Dnk]

Are the polls right and could we be facing a hung parliament ?

[Chris Wilson]

No, May will be fine.

[Pete]

Nord vpn ftw

Great...Until VPN services are blocked too.

 

The moment you put in any back doors or monitoring tools for one person, then it WILL be leaked and used nefariously by people that should most certainly NOT have access to your private or business data. Do you realise just how much value there is in the tech industries private business data alone? Any business of worth will leave the UK leading to a massive drain of talent and resources. There goes one of our "rising industries".

 

Don't even get me started on the concept of blocking content with a China style great firewall. It does and WILL go wrong by erroneously blocking innocent businesses, not to mentioned hideously slowing the Internet down and causing all sorts of errors and breakdowns.

 

All that will happen is people that want to remain private - will find ways to still remain private.

 

After forcing through the unsuitable Snoopers Charter May won't be happy until she's blown your privacy wide apart and turned us into 1984.