UK Government Seeks New Web Censorship Powers

oldandcold writes "Given the recent coverage and controversy over Australia's forthcoming web censorship system, it is somewhat surprising (and worrying) that Clause 11 of the UK's proposed Digital Economy Bill seems to have gone by largely unnoticed. It amends the Communications Act 2003 to insert a new section 124H that could give the Secretary of State powers to order ISPs to block pretty much any website for pretty much any reason. Such orders would not require the scrutiny of parliament, or anyone else for that matter, because the Secretary of State would not be required to publish them."

Comments

Bastards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking bastards.

You mean like Ireland's blasphemy laws?

[Kyrene]

Ireland passed laws recently against uttering "blasphemy" and no one batted an eye...except on Twitter. A lot of this is getting swept under the rug, and it both shocks and appalls me.

Re:You mean like Ireland's blasphemy laws?

[jocabergs]

A law against blasphemy... Blasphemy I say, this will not stand!!!

Re:You mean like Ireland's blasphemy laws?

[MBGMorden]

It's ok - the US is screwed up in lots of places too. In the state of SC you cannot legally hold public office if you don't believe in a supreme being. It doesn't state any specific one (so whether you're Muslim/Christian/Hindu/etc you're covered), but if you're an admitted atheist you can't legally hold office.

It's one of those old laws, but still. Heck though nobody observed the law anymore, interracial marriage in South Carolina was technically illegal until 1998. And the vote to repeal it (again, in 1998)? Yeah, it did pass, but 38% voted AGAINST repealing the law.

I'm convinced that the world as a whole may just be too messed up to recover from.

Re:What happened to you, UK? You used to be cool

[AliasMarlowe]

The UK used to be cool?
When was this, when it was occupied by the Romans?

Much more recently than that. During the Little Ice Age, when the Thames froze over. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/The_Frozen_Thames_1677.jpg Since then, it's been a progressive loss of cool and loss of reason, reaching to today's hideous macchiavelian antics.

This isn't even the worst part of the proposal

[ais523]

See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j164. The proposal also gives the Secretary of State the rights to a) decide the punishment for copyright infringement, and b) redefine what a copyright infringement is. Therefore, he can effectively jail, or worse, anyone he likes for no reason. Also, the law gives him the power to rewrite the law itself; there are some restrictions, but he can just rewrite it to remove them. In short, passing this proposal would give Lord Mandelson a complete dictatorship over the UK. (If you don't believe me, read it yourself; the only meaningful restriction is to have a draft of the changes approved by parliament, and it would be easy enough to slip in a removal of that restriction at the same time as another change.)

Re:This isn't even the worst part of the proposal

[Nuskrad]

Read a bit more closely, he can't create or modify criminal offences, so throwing people in jail is out of the question, and any SI under that section has to be put to public consultation (which will probably be ignored as a matter of routine of course) and voted on by both houses of Parliament. It is a worrying power, since it allows a controversial area of law to be changed with a lot less scrutiny, but don't overstate the matter.

The offending piece:

[fiannaFailMan]

I'm usually sceptical about /. summaries and their accuracy, so I looked a little deeper into this one before commenting.

From the parliamentary document:

124H Obligations to limit internet access

20 (1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—

(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under section 124G; or

25 (b) any other consideration.

The "any other consideration" part is what would concern me. Yup, this looks like the real deal. Gives the SoS a lot of power with little oversight.

Re:Huh?

[sexconker]

Americans fled from Europe in general, not just England.

Also, UK != England != Great Britain != British Isles.

Re:Democracy ?

[jameskojiro]

" In the infaliable United States Democracy (in which I do not reside) - those people have their democratic rights MEMORIZED, printed off, laminated, and FRAMED above their mantlepiece. "

If only every citizen in the United States did this then the United States would be a somewhat decent country.

Re:Web sites on Double Secret Probation

[the_womble]

The man who will make the decisions is

1) Has been forced to resign twice
2) Does not hold any elected office
3) Popularly known as "the Prince of Darkness"

No, the last is not a joke - google for "mandelson prince".

This hasn't gone unnoticed

[Cederic]

My MP received a telephone call followed up by an email from me 3-4 weeks ago on this matter.

The Open Rights Group (at http://www.openrightsgroup.org/) have promoted a campaign for their members and supporters to raise this not only to MPs but also to members of the House of Lords.

This is yet another draconian and easily abused piece of legislation that is declared as addressing something that isn't an issue, in a manner that allows its use for other purposes while failing to address the underlying issue in the first place.

I'm fucked off about it, but frankly there's not a whole lot more I can peacably do.