{"id":92097,"date":"2021-10-23T17:24:07","date_gmt":"2021-10-23T21:24:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=92097"},"modified":"2021-10-23T17:25:28","modified_gmt":"2021-10-23T21:25:28","slug":"it-now-becomes-clear-why-mi5-mi6-assassinated-mp-david-amess","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=92097","title":{"rendered":"It now becomes clear why MI5\/MI6 assassinated “anti-vax passport” MP David Amess!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cDavid\u2019s Law\u201d: How the Amess attack will be used to control the internet<\/strong><\/h1>\n

<\/p>\n

The recent killing is already being used as ammunition to attack independent social media and the very idea of anonymity on the web.<\/h3>\n

Kit Knightly
\nOff-Guardian<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

On October 15th Sir David Amess MP was attending a constituency \u201csurgery\u201d at Belfairs church in Leigh-on-Sea. During the meeting, a young man emerged from the crowd and stabbed the MP several times.<\/p>\n

Ambulances and police were called. They attempted to revive him at the scene, but he was declared dead.<\/p>\n

The suspect, meanwhile, made no attempt to flee. It has since been reported he is the son of a Somali politician, was known to the UK\u2019s\u00a0\u201cPrevent\u201d counter-terrorism programme<\/a>, and was reportedly \u201cradicalised online\u201d.<\/p>\n

The killing is being treated as a \u201cterrorist incident\u201d.<\/p>\n

These are\u00a0the alleged facts of the case<\/a>\u00a0as they have been released to the public.<\/p>\n

Are they true? Maybe. Maybe not. It\u2019s too early to say, and we\u2019ll likely never know for sure. The truth is \u2013 for everyone outside the Amess family and friends \u2013 it really isn\u2019t the most pressing issue. Whatever the reality of the \u201cattack\u201d, what we, the 99%, need to be most concerned about is the agenda coming in its wake<\/p>\n

Real attack or not, false flag or not, the fallout is the same: Censorship, state control and \u201cDavid\u2019s Law\u201d.<\/p>\n

THE ONLINE HARMS BILL<\/h4>\n

The first reaction to the Amess attack has been renewed coverage of, and loud calls for, the \u201conline harms\u201d bill to be put to a vote. All this despite there being\u00a0no publicly released evidence linking the Amess attack to any \u201conline harms\u201d at all.<\/em><\/p>\n

The \u201cOnline Harms Prevention Bill\u201d is not in any way a response to Amess\u2019 death and has actually been in development for a while. A white paper reporting the need for the bill was\u00a0first published in April 2019<\/a>, then\u00a0updated in December 2020<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This was followed by a\u00a0draft bill in May 2021<\/a>\u00a0and then a report on\u00a0\u201cRegulating Online Harms\u201d<\/a>, published in August.<\/p>\n

The Bill has existed for over eighteen months, and any attempts to link it to David Amess are purely manipulative tactics designed to force it through parliament on a wave of emotion.<\/p>\n

It might be dismissed by some as \u2018callous\u2019 to talk about the alleged murder of a seemingly innocent person in terms of cynical agenda \u2013 but it\u2019s the very opposite. It\u2019s an expression of concern and social responsibility. The establishment uses these events as gambits, so we have to get used to reading them as such if we want to protect the rights and freedoms that will be freshly attacked.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re already seeing a deluge of coverage in the press talking up the dangers of our\u00a0\u201ctoxic political discourse\u201d<\/em>\u00a0and the threat that\u00a0\u201cdivisive polarised speech\u201d<\/em>\u00a0poses because it can\u00a0\u201cradicalise\u201d<\/em>\u00a0people and\u00a0\u201ccreate the climate where violence becomes inevitable\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Mirror warns of an\u00a0increase in \u201cbedroom radicals\u201d<\/a>\u00a0thanks to lockdowns. The Guardian echoes this,\u00a0claiming \u201conline hate\u201d is \u201cnastier than ever\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and \u201caction is required\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Telegraph\u00a0headlines<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cSocial media companies \u2018must do more\u2019 to protect MPs from online hate\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Politicians are likewise prepping the ground for the bill to pass.<\/p>\n

Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab went on Sky News to talk about\u00a0\u201conline hate\u201d being \u201cout of control\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sir\u00a0<\/em>Keir Starmer, leader of the supposed \u201copposition\u201d, used the first PMQs since the attack\u00a0to rail against the lack of regulation of the internet<\/a>\u00a0and call for something to be done. Boris has already committed to bringing the \u201cOnline Harms\u201d vote forward\u00a0\u201cbefore Christmas\u201d<\/em>\u00a0when it was previously expected to wait until at least spring of 2022.<\/p>\n

So, what\u2019s in this bill?<\/p>\n

Nothing much that hasn\u2019t been said before. The White Paper and report proselytise about the need to protect children, women, ethnic minorities and \u201cthe vulnerable\u201d from \u201chate\u201d. The bill itself suggests a new \u201cstatutory duty of care\u201d for the internet, and a new \u201cregulatory body\u201d with a \u201csuite of powers\u201d to ensure companies fulfil this \u201cduty of care\u201d.<\/p>\n

There are chapters dedicated to actual crimes, such as child pornography and threats of violence, but also much murkier \u201charms\u201d described as \u201clegal but harmful\u201d. These include, but are not limited to, \u201cdisinformation\u201d and \u201cbullying\u201d. As always, the language of legislature is deliberately obscure, shrouded in the muddied meaning of bureaucratic double-talk.<\/p>\n

One concrete, and concerning, clause would grant OfCom the power to demand private user information from internet providers and social media companies (although we do know they do this already).<\/p>\n

But the most dangerous part of the bill may not even be written yet\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cDAVID\u2019S LAW\u201d<\/h4>\n

Within days of the news breaking Tory MPs were calling\u00a0on Boris Johnson to enact \u201cDavid\u2019s Law\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cDavid\u2019s Law\u201d would be either new legislation or a \u201cstrengthening\u201d of the current proposed legislation, to totally remove online anonymity.<\/p>\n

Tory MP Mark Francois,\u00a0said in a speech to the Commons<\/a>:<\/p>\n

So let\u2019s put, if I may be so presumptuous, David\u2019s Law onto the statute book, the essence of which would be that while people in public life must remain open to legitimate criticism, they can no longer be vilified or their families subject to the most horrendous abuse, especially from people who hide behind a cloak of anonymity with the connivance of the social media companies for profit.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Priti Patel is already\u00a0\u201cconsidering\u201d taking away the \u201cright to anonymity online\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Other politicians, including\u00a0Dominiic Raab<\/a>\u00a0and Lindsey Hoyle, the speaker of the house, have expressed total agreement.<\/p>\n

Politico headlines the UK is\u00a0\u201cwrestling with anonymity\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But what exactly would \u201cending anonymity\u201d entail? That\u2019s not clear. The white paper discusses how \u201canonymous accounts\u201d can be used to \u201chide illegal activity\u201d, and that companies should do more to prevent this, but there is nothing in there about outright banning them.<\/p>\n

Any such formal ban would involve amending the bill, or writing a new one. Hence we have talk in parliament of \u201cstrengthening\u201d the proposed legislation, but does that mean a ban? Perhaps, perhaps not.<\/p>\n

A more likely (and more British) approach, as we are already seeing with vaccine passports, would be to make it an\u00a0informal<\/em>\u00a0ban by pressuring the companies themselves to act outside of legislative compulsion. Parliament will author new \u201cguidance\u201d or \u201crecommendations\u201d on the opening of social media accounts, without ever enforcing them as law.<\/p>\n

But partner this with steep fines for illegal activity, \u201chate speech\u201d or \u201cmisinformation\u201d, along with the proposal to make platforms criminally liable for \u201charmful content\u201d, and companies become their own strict censors in the name of protecting their profit margin.<\/p>\n

This is not a fringe theory at all, David Davis MP of all people, described exactly this process in warning that the online harms bill could become a\u00a0\u201ccensor\u2019s charter\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not hard to see how that system could be used to totally remove the idea of online anonymity without ever making it actually\u00a0illegal<\/em>, but rather making it too financially risky. Thus skirting any accusations of state censorship or authoritarianism.<\/p>\n

We already know major internet players work hand-in-glove with governments all over the world, so they can be relied upon to enforce any new \u201cduty of care\u201d regulations. But the smaller competitors, who use privacy as a major selling point, can expect to be put in the media crosshairs.<\/p>\n

Enter Telegram.<\/p>\n

THE WAR ON TELEGRAM<\/h4>\n

Telegram, for those who aren\u2019t familiar, is an encrypted private messaging service created by Russian Pavel Durov. It became the go-to encrypted service after Facebook bought Whatsapp, and its \u201cchannel\u201d feature is a very useful way to communicate with thousands upon thousands of people at once. During the \u201cpandemic\u201d it has become a hub for those organizing protests and broadcasting information banned from mainstream platforms.<\/p>\n

All of that has clearly put it on the state\u2019s hit list, because somehow, in all the outpouring of emotion following Amess\u2019 stabbing, it is Telegram that comes in for specific criticism.<\/p>\n

To be clear: Telegram is not yet known to have played any part whatsoever in the attack on David Amess. None. It\u2019s not even known whether or not the alleged killer had a telegram account.<\/p>\n

Despite this, yesterday in Parliament,\u00a0Sir<\/em>\u00a0Keir Starmer attacked Telegram as the \u201capp of choice for extremists\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, he was citing a report from the\u00a0NGO Hope Not Hate<\/a>\u00a0which was released on October 13th,\u00a0just two days before Amess was stabbed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In fact, Telegram has been the subject of ongoing media smears for years, and these have only intensified in the last few days.<\/p>\n

Back in 2016, Gizmodo was telling people they should\u00a0\u201cdelete telegram right now\u201d<\/a>, ironically because it wasn\u2019t really encrypted enough. This story was repeated\u00a0by Vice in November 2020<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0then Wired in January<\/a>\u00a0of this year.<\/p>\n

Also in January, following the \u201criot\u201d on Capitol Hill, Telegram was accused of being a safe haven for the \u201cfar-right\u201d.<\/p>\n

Vox headlined<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Why right-wing extremists\u2019 favorite new platform is so dangerous<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The\u00a0Washington Post went with<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps \u2014 and out of view of law enforcement<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In April Forbes\u00a0reported that Telegram was \u201cdangerous\u201d<\/a>. In May it was a platform \u201cwhere cyber criminals share stolen data\u201d<\/a>. And then in June the New York Times called it a\u00a0\u201cmisinformation hotspot\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A September article in Politico accuses Telegram of allowing\u00a0\u201cmisinformation\u201d intended to influence the recent German election.<\/a><\/p>\n

Also in September, the Financial Times called Telegram a new\u00a0\u201cdark web for cyber criminals\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And an October article in Wired accuses the platform of being a\u00a0\u201ccesspool of antisemtic content\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It goes on and on and on.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most tellingly, Telegram is regularly blamed for Covid-related \u201cmisinformation\u201d, along with\u00a0selling fake Vaccine passes<\/a>\u00a0and allowing\u00a0\u201cthreats to NHS workers\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

ARE YOU SEEING THE PATTERN?<\/h4>\n

Well\u2026are you?<\/p>\n

Although all this is framed as a response to the death of David Amess,\u00a0none of it has yet been shown to have any relevance to the Amess case at all<\/em>, and all of it\u00a0predates the murder happening<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The online harms bill is almost three years old, the attacks on Telegram have been going on for over a year, and you can find a steady stream of\u00a0media attacks<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0online anonymity<\/a>\u00a0going back\u00a0over a decade<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As so often, the \u201creaction\u201d to this \u201cproblem\u201d is selling us a \u201csolution\u201d they\u2019ve had planned for years.<\/p>\n

Since at least 2016 MPs have been talking about\u00a0\u201creclaiming the net\u201d<\/a>, while outlets like The Guardian have been talking about creating\u00a0\u201cthe web we want\u201d,<\/a>\u00a0and producing\u00a0tortured statistical reports<\/a>\u00a0to paint the web as a dangerous place.<\/p>\n

(Interesting note: those butchered \u201cstatistics\u201d are referenced in the Online Harms white paper, a little incite into the self-sustaining nature of propaganda).<\/p>\n

The lesson we should all learn: \u201cPolicy\u201d is never a\u00a0response<\/em>, policy is an\u00a0aim<\/em>, a predetermined conclusion.<\/p>\n

It is decided and written, and then the \u201creality\u201d that justifies that policy is constructed, either through opportunistic use of real tragedies, cultivated public opinion, false-flag attacks or pure invention.<\/p>\n

___
\nhttps:\/\/off-guardian.org\/2021\/10\/21\/davids-law-how-the-amess-attack-will-be-used-to-control-the-internet\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cDavid\u2019s Law\u201d: How the Amess attack will be used to control the internet<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=92097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=92097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=92097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=92097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}