What Does Thursday’s Election Mean For Tech?
Theresa May has declared to drastically change our Internet, making huge regulations over what is said on the web, what is posted and what is shared.
The Tories will prohibit access to “questionable” sites, whilst demanding that search engines also stop directing people “to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm”.
“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the Internet…we disagree”, Theresa May proclaimed.
Although May is pledging to keep us safe from the unpleasantries of the internet, there is an undeniable element of this manifesto that is pure censorship, and moving dangerously close to something of a dictatorship.
Furthermore, whilst the government is motivated by the threat of terrorism, their desperation to seek backdoor access to terrorist’s messages will lower the security of our own messages and information.
For me, this manifesto is patronising to the British people: not only does it underestimates our ability to make decisions, but it also casts aside our rights to privacy.
The manifesto follows on from the Investigatory Powers Act -which I discussed in a previous article on government surveillance plans- which could also have damaging effects on the security of our personal information.
A huge part of this manifesto is also aimed at reducing the autonomy of internet giants such as Google and Facebook, thereby increasing governmental influence over the content and news we receive.
Jim Killock, (of the UK Open Rights Group) is alarmed by this, claiming that most big internet powers “already censor more than the law requires”. He has also expressed fear that this manifesto will achieve little as a result of this, but at a very high cost; forcing powerful Internet sites to make judgement on posts themselves.
Tim Farron, head of the Liberal Democrats also strongly refutes Theresa May’s internet regulations, claiming that “these issues are not going to be solved with political gimmicks or by banning particular technologies”.
The Liberal Democrats believe that “politicians need to work with technology companies like Facebook , Twitter and WhatsApp”, rather than to censor or filter them. Should Farron be elected, his plan would be to increase security against terrorism focus on the reversal of The Tories Police cuts, something that is also central to the Labour Manifesto.
Jeremy Corbyn has not clearly defined his stance on May’s internet regulations, however, in agreement with Farron he has also projected the increase of police funding as a more appropriate method of increasing our nation’s security.
Corbyn’s promotes that “cutting off the funding to these terror networks, including Isis, here and in the Middle East”, as well as supporting our police services are key to tackling terrorism: suggesting that he is not concerned about regulating the internet in the same manner as May.
Clearly, Thursday’s election poses some very different possibilities for technology.
The Tories declaration to regulate news- well intended or not- gives them the power to taint the information we rely on and to censor it in their favour. This is something that I believe completely defies the laws of democracy, and ultimately, is very bad news for tech.
