Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Crowd-Sourcing Censorship
angry tapir writes "The UK public can report 'terrorism-related' Web sites to authorities for removal from the Internet under a new program launched by the British government. The program is a way in which the government is seeking to enforce the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006. These laws make it illegal to have or to share information intended to be useful to terrorists, and ban glorifying terrorism or urging people to commit terrorist acts."
I hereby report "slashdot.org".
Good luck with that.
No, seriously, all the best to those making a grand attempt to remove something from the internet without just causing it to be spread around even more. I imagine you'll have many fun years of failure.
I report google
So, if a terrorist does a Google search for info about weapons, will Google be censored?
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Scaring large groups of the population by threatening to report them for a terrorism-related fate of certain doom could in itself be considered an act of terrorism... Maybe not by the standards of the 2000 and 2006 laws, but surely by the future 2012 law am I required to proactively report your attempted terrorism on "slashdot.org".
Citizen: "Ossifer, I've looked at this website and it is terism"
Plod: "So you admit to looking at terism? Go directly to Belmarsh. Do not pass go"
Always a horrifying thought, being reported by your neighbors.
I work with an elderly West German lady. She was telling me that her East German friends had grown a lifetime of distrust for just about everyone. Some East Germans that grew up steeped in this mindset still keep new friends at arm's length, even today.
Also, the story reminded me of this gem:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
Because they scare the sh*t out of me, and I'm pretty sure they're doing it to influence my vote.
This is so annoying in two main ways. One, the banned site can be up again in minutes (under a new web name), so that does not help and two, the wording of the ban covers such a wide range of meaning as to make it a blank order to close any site in the world, after all even the bbc site covers news about terror so it that no illegal?
Tackle the terrorist ideas at their roots, a light in the darkness, so to speak. That will be more effective.
I'm sure that should be http://ministry_of_love.direct.gov.uk/ .
(If you've not read Orwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Love )
http://twitter.com/onion2k
What worries me is the term: 'intended to be useful to terrorists'; this is so broad a definition, in theory anything could be deemed as useful to terrorist. For example, how to fly a plane, how to drive a car, self defense techniques. It also concerns me what implications to freedoms this may have on non-violent polictical protest sites i.e. any site that may critise a governments policy. I am a UK citizen and am becoming increasingly worried as my freedoms are being slowly litigated for my 'own good' to combat terrorism. Reminds me of a joke on Red Dwarf: 'Report your friends, family and neighbours... wonderful prizes to be won.'
H'm, if I go surfing for terrorist websites so I can report them , won't I just get a visit from men dressed in black with machine guns 'cos they think I'm a terrorsist?
I think I'll pass long term incarceration and interrogations aren't really my thing.
I would hazard to guess based on the media reports that Britain's radical Muslim problem is only topped by the Netherlands (where prominent critics of Islam have been routinely murdered or credibly threatened with murder). There was even a survey done of the British Muslim population that said that about 40% of the young Muslims in the country want to live under Sharia.
The British government is going to have to start rounding up the radical clerics and deporting them. Hell, banish them from the United Kingdom altogether. The problem is, they know they'll inflame a lot of anti-British sentiment if they do that. Then they'll have to either start cracking skulls left and right or start en masse rounding up and deporting the Muslims who go to those mosques, deport them and put a marker on them that permanently marks them as a ne'erdoweller who has no business ever setting foot on British soil again.
The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt. The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily.
The political correctness of the British government is not doing genuine moderate Muslims any good because it's creating an environment where the extremists can thrive under "diversity" and the native population can be slowly radicalized against the entire immigrant population starting from the working class up (IIRC, the British working class were the primary support behind the BNP when it recently won a small, but worrisome amount of the vote for the first time).
This is a wonderful idea. Let's call the volunteer participants in this program Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter .
Apparently, owning a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook is a jailable offense. I therefore should report amazon.co.uk who sells it. And since its not limited to british sites, I am pretty sure I read on wikipedia the mechanics on how thermonuclear weapons work. At least 1940s/1950s era weapons. In a world where information is criminal, only criminals will have information.
There are two kinds of fool. One says, This is old, and therefore good. And one says, This is new, and therefore better.
Obviously, Linux undermines the capitalist way of life. Any website mentioning Linux would qualify!
* Carthago Delenda Est *
The 'freedom fighters' running up and down the English moor land playing with "blowpipes" to bring down Hinds.
They where soooo cool back the and the SAS staff loved them long time.
Once your in other peoples homes, riding around with explosives in local clothing and get caught, the locals tend to remember that.
They tend to glorify that for generations, no outside help needed.
Finding the (Force Research Unit?) pics on an Irish website is priceless (scroll down)
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80163
With the interweb we can crowd source and glorify the British government.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Check
Check
and check.
So I reported the Subway (The Tube in the UK) schedules as being dramatically helpful to terrorists. Not only to target the subway itself but they might use it to get to their unrelated targets. Coming to think of it, let's shut down all Internet access cuz who knows what them terrorists will use it for...
I know there's a lot of very idealistic and naive libertarians on Slashdot who chafe against anything that would even hint suppressing free flow of information, no matter how objectionable or subversive.
But you all need to realise that when the rubber hits the road, idealism doesn't get you very far in the real world. Truth be told, the UK has a large problem with radical, violent, political Islam, and merely pussyfooting around, striving not to offend, and obsessing about theoretical and abstract notions of "rights" and "freedoms" -- and conveniently ignoring the obligations of EVERYONE to obey the law and behave like citizens -- will get us nowhere.
I heartily endorse any action taken to crack Islamist heads in the UK. Sometimes, tough choices have to be made, and idealism dispensed with.
The worse part about this site is that they have recaptcha on it but verify the request in javascript.
Hence you can stick this request on your spam bot...
https://reporting.direct.gov.uk/bin/submitter.php?report_type=1&report_url=reporting.direct.gov.uk&report_desc=GeorgeOrwellWasRight
...after you're already slipping, can you?
This will a) provide nothing b) will destroy a lot c) won't cure paranoia
Dear God help us.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Usama Bin Laden have proved that terrorism is infact a very succesful tool. This law alone proves that it works just as intended. If the goal is to tighten the screws on your opponents population and make their life living 1984 i cant think of a better way. I find it very amusing that someone crate a law that proves that terrorism works just dandy and at the same time forbid anyone to speak about it.
I dont condone terrorism but it sure seems to work very well for some tasks. The US has a public perception of being evil and we westerners are now monitored, searched, scanned, Without free speech and controlled in any way possible.
The best we could have done was to gotten to the core of the problem, why do terrorists exist, what do they want? How do we go about getting rid of them peacefully, take away their reasons to commit terrorist acts and thus support from the general population?
As of now we just wander straight into the trap waving a big sign against the terrorists "Do it again! It works!" while we all loose essential human rights one after another.
HTTP/1.1 400
Content deemed illegal by the U.K. includes videos of beheadings, messages that encourage racial or terrorist violence and chat forums revolving around hate crimes, according to information on Direct.co.uk.
(emphasis mine)
YouTube comments, anyone?
I accept I know nothing. Insulting my ignorance is wasted on me.
Re:"Removal from the internet"? (Score:-1, Flamebait)
literally.
OK, so it's still nigh on impossible to report phishing sites and malware-ridden adverts -- things which DO have a tangible negative impact on people -- to the authorities, but everyone is encouraged to take action against a mythical drummed-up threat which impacts almost nobody in this country?
Im so fucking sick of this shit. Is it too much effort to protect us from REAL threats?
I bet you actually think that that was an intelligent response!
Your entire response below to benjfowler is indicative of how you missed my point which is that ignoring the radicals imperils those who are genuine moderates. They are the ones who get caught in the middle. The British government should infiltrate radical mosques and monitor them. Over time, if the agents feel that the congregation is too radical, identify the non-citizens and mark them for deportation.
That is the only way to draw a line in the sand without harming anyone. The moderates who just want to integrate will end up standing on one side, and the "moderates" who are closet sympathizers will end up on the other. Anyone who gets radicalized by that was not a true moderate to begin with under these circumstances.
what implications to freedoms this may have on non-violent polictical protest sites i.e. any site that may critise a governments policy
You need to read an article from The Register which points out that a LOT of the restrictions which apply to print media could be used to limit web-speech during a general election.
The only reason we still appear to have a more-or-less free society is that the government (whichever colour we have/will-have) have not yet chosen to enforce the laws they have already put in place.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Calm down. This allows to report a website for investigation - it does not allow you some sort of final say on whether it's illegal or not - that decision, as before, is made by the Home Office. This is no different to calling the police if you see someone suspicious. The police make the final judgement on whether they're acting illegally or not. How valid that judgement is, of course, is another matter....
I tried http://www.dailymail.co.uk/* but it didn't work. seriously though - this seems open to abuse. Presumably they have to get a threshold number of complaints before they will look at something.
To get in, first you open mspaint and click on the A button. The open an Excel spreadsheet and leave the cursor on the cell B23. Then you move the mouse over the first letter o (for Obama) in the word Glorious. And click simultaneously control,PgUp,alt,scroll lock and del keys. That will open a dialog very similar to shutdown/reboot dialog. Select shutdown, but it is really a secret passage way. Then the site fully and give you full access to all the materials.
Sometimes the site will pretend to shut the machine off to fool the FBI and CIA. You may have to try three of four times before you could get in.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Could everyone stop it with the "ooh, X is useful to Terrorists, let's ban that!!1!" comments?
I'm as uncomfortable about some of the ramifications of this law as anyone else here, but the key phrase you're all ignoring is intended to be.
Wikipedia, the Tube, etc - all useful to terrorists, not intended to be useful to terrorists, not illegal.
A site enabling people to donate money, time, etc to terrorist causes - useful to terrorists, intended to be useful to terrorists, illegal.
Now please, by all means rail against the possible civil liberties violations, potential for misuse and abuse, etc, but let's not rewrite the law so it says something other than what it does. Doing so, and complaining about things that are not covered by it only harms otherwise legitimate complaints and concerns and makes those working against it look foolish and thus easier to dismiss.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
"...ban glorifying terrorism or urging people to commit terrorist acts."
Then since the material at http://www.2020tech.com/thanks/temp.html describes a group of people who committed multiple acts of terrorism, it would have to go, along with any of the more sanitized versions such as are presented as childrens' plays all over the US yearly, since these romanticized versions 'glorify' their actions. How ironic that the descendants of these terrorists would pass a law banning their ancestors' story.
=== snippedy snip ===
1. The Puritans were not just simple religious
conservatives persecuted by the King and the Church of
England for their unorthodox beliefs. They were
political revolutionaries who not only intended to
overthrow the government of England, but who actually
did so in 1649.
2. The Puritan "Pilgrims" who came to New England were not
simply refugees who decided to "put their fate in God's
hands" in the "empty wilderness" of North America, as a
generation of Hollywood movies taught us. In any culture
at any time, settlers on a frontier are most often
outcasts and fugitives who, in some way or other, do not
fit into the mainstream of their society. This is not to
imply that people who settle on frontiers have no
redeeming qualities such as bravery, etc., but that the
images of nobility that we associate with the Puritans
are at least in part the good "P.R." efforts of later
writers who have romanticized them.(1) It is also very
plausible that this unnaturally noble image of the
Puritans is all wrapped up with the mythology of "Noble
Civilization" vs. "Savagery."(2) At any rate, mainstream
Englishmen considered the Pilgrims to be deliberate
religious dropouts who intended to found a new nation
completely independent from non-Puritan England. In 1643
the Puritan/Pilgrims declared themselves an independent
confederacy, one hundred and forty-three years before
the American Revolution. They believed in the imminent
occurrence of Armegeddon in Europe and hoped to
establish here in the new world the "Kingdom of God"
foretold in the book of Revelation. They diverged from
their Puritan brethren who remained in England only in
that they held little real hope of ever being able to
successfully overthrow the King and Parliament and,
thereby, impose their "Rule of Saints" (yestrict Puritan
orthodoxy) on the rest of the British people. So they
came to America not just in one ship (the Mayflower) but
in a hundred others as well, with every intention of
taking the land away from its native people to build
their prophesied "Holy Kingdom."(3)
3. The Pilgrims were not just innocent refugees from
religious persecution. They were victims of bigotry in
England, but some of them were themselves religious
bigots by our modern standards. The Puritans and the
Pilgrims saw themselves as the "Chosen Elect" mentioned
in the book of Revelation. They strove to "purify" first
themselves and then everyone else of everything they did
not accept in their own interpretation of scripture.
Later New England Puritans used any means, including
deceptions, treachery, torture, war, and genocide to
achieve that end.(4) They saw themselves as fighting a
holy war against Satan, and everyone who disagreed with
them was the enemy. This rigid fundamentalism was
transmitted to America by the Plymouth colonists, and it
sheds a very different light on the "Pilgrim" image we
have of them. This is best illustrated in the written
text of the Thanksgiving sermon delivered at Plymouth in
1623 by "Mather the Elder." In it, Mather the Elder gave
special thanks to God for the devastating plague of
smallpox which wiped out the majority of the Wampanoag
Indians who had been their benefactors. He praised God
for destroying "chiefly young men and children, the very
seeds of increase, thus clearing the forests to ma
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
The UK public can report 'terrorism-related' Web sites to authorities for removal from the Internet
So I assume they are going to post the urls to /.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
How long before this will be brought down due to false reportings?
I'm placing my bets on whenever 4chan gets a hold of it.
King George III is dead. Some time ago. Sorry to break it to you so harshly.
I have a feeling god is saying "Fuck that. Those idiots created it, they can deal with it."
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
There was a time when reporting your fellow citizens wasn't referred to as "crowd sourcing censorship".
Hmm... when were the government advocating "denunciations" in Germany?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
... and does supporting protest of actions of the crown count as terrorism?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Don't give them ideas! ;)
But yes - there's the Internet Watch Foundation (which also crowd sources its censorship - their website has a big red button for you to report stuff), which censors blocked webpages for about 95% of UK users (a few ISPs have yet to implement it, but the Government wants it to be mandatory for all). Allegedly it's only for "potential" child pr0n, but we know from the Wikipedia-censorship episode just how broadly they interpret that.
For anything else, it seems the Government is so far preferring to take down the source, and/or criminalise possession of the material.
The Government have repeatedly told the ISPs that if they don't do it "voluntarily", they'll pass a law forcing them to do it. And from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7904607.stm , Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."
Yes, they're so far "only" at 95%, but that just means they're not all the way there yet. It is Government mandated though.
It's the worst of both worlds. We're being forced into it by the Government, but because it's handled by a non-Government entity, there's no oversight or right of appeal, and the Government just say "Oh it's nothing to do with us, the ISPs 'chose' to do this".
I didn't RTFA, but.
Wouldn't some people want to give the terrorists information that would change their minds and avert an act of terrorism? Perhaps some people would want to talk them out of it. However, in the case of a suicide bomber, this is helping the terrorist. It saves his life. So, a website devoted to talking suicide bombers out of killing themselves and others would be intended to be helpful to terrorists. This would then be illegal.
Or what about evangelical Christians? They typically want to convert others to "save" them (read "help" them); I'm sure this includes terrorists. So, all websites about spreading Christianity are now illegal.
The elites can see it but don't care. A billionaire Muslim has more in common with a billionaire Jew than with the plebs of any religious persuasion who do the work.
What do they care if the poor (you're poor in this context) squabble amongst themselves and kill each other, so long as they are competing for work and bringing down labour costs.
If there is one thing that annoys me it is when some airhead imagines that they are the only one to have spotted the obvious.
"intended to be" can be interpreted differently by different people. They are weasel words which mean one thing to one set of people and something quite different to another set.
Stop being dim.
I hereby report the UK government
At least in the US the "Patriot Act" was "Intended" to be used against terrorists. Instead I believe it has been estimated that 50%-80% of its use is against everyday crime. It has even been used against "dissidents" who's only "crime" was questioning the actions of the government (Professors being harrassed at airports anyone). "Child Porn" laws were "Intended" to be used against people abusing children. Instead we have case after case where they are used against teenagers for "sexting", ruining their lives just as surely as being abused would have. History has shown (at least hear in the U.S.) that laws that can be abused, WILL BE.
Fox Nation has plenty of people advocating terrorist activities in the US, against Obama, liberals, gays, blacks, jews, and other classes of people that the wing nuts deem unacceptable. I guess they'll get blocked.
since Bruce Schneiers blog is full of terrorist do's and don'ts.
I'm totally submitting teh Google.
Hey, the terrorists could use it to search for GOD KNOWS WHAT!!1!
Sebastian Doyle: [reading] "Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement"?
Jake Bullet: [reading] "Be a Government Informer. Betray Your Family & Friends. Fabulous Prizes to be Won"?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Really? Wow, and I am certain all such "threats" have been reported to the proper authorities, that the FBI has investigated and charges have been brought against all such perpetrators?
What was that? I distinctly heard you say "No, I mean...."
I am a Libertarian, and, I admit, I am probably on the right wing side of the party (if there really is such a thing). So, yeah, I am busting your chops over your absolutely absurd assertions.
Take a look around at both of the major parties and their supporters (media on both sides) and I am sure you will find that each and every assertion of yours about "Fox Nation" is equally true for supporters and media for "the other side".
Wow! They are going to have to ban most of the British government's own websites, as they are part of an international terrorist network. Good luck with that!
A thought crime in 1984 was anything that went against the orthodoxy of The Party. What you are calling a "thought crime" is identifying a class of people who want to radically alter, often through violence, the very culture, let alone system of government.
A free society is not a suicide pact, but that's what you make it when you extend freedom of speech to the point where immigrants cannot even be sent home for holding radically hostile views toward their host society.
Some of you merely inferred from my post that I believe that the British government should deport **citizens**, but I never said that. I said it should round up the immigrants. Most of these violent sermons they get in trouble for are straight up sedition, and sedition has never been legal. Even in the United States, it is currently a punishable offense.
Before you make a bigger ass of yourself by saying Sedition==Thought Crime, read what Wikipedia has to say about what sedition actually is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
Hint: it's not calling out your government, but rather speech aimed at fomenting an insurrection.
...that Brits feel this overwhelming need to resurrect it?
Every citizen a government informer: The old Stasi crew must be laughing their arses off.
Regards;
No, if your side wins you're a freedom fighter, if they lose you're a terrorist.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Reported for this. People have actually been convicted in the UK for downloading that
In a world where information is criminal, only criminals will have information.
Information doesn't kill people. Informed people kill people!
Isn't the RIAA a terrorist organization?
The point of terrorism is to use fear to negatively influence the behavior of the masses.
The more we try to protect ourselves from terrorism, the more freedoms we lose and the more the terrorists win. The result is a disturbing version of the Streisand Effect.
...only outlaws will have knowledge.
Maps are arguably the most useful source of information for terrorists.
How else can they get their bombs to the correct location in a foreign land?
Explosives can be used by terrorists to harm innocent people.
Chemistry describes how chemicals react...to create explosions.
Physics describes how force is applied...during an explosion.
Math is used extensively to solve formulas...in both Chemistry and Physics.
Words are used to represent information...that describes how to make bombs.
Paper is used to convey language...which could describe terrorist actions.
Food is an important resource...that helps all terrorists survive!
You don't want to help the terrorists do you?
Then, you understand why we're removing all of your surplus food items, writing utensils, books, maps, televisions, and home computers.
Do you have a license for those vocal cords?
The minute we decided that freedom was less important than safety.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Therefore, we now have neither Liberty or Safety.
Basically they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to commit or promote terrorism. Since the Government has locked people up and tried on the argument "we know they plan terrible things but we can't tell you what they are for reasons of State", and m'Lud has responded "Bollocks to that, Jacqui" (or Dave, or whoever was currently disgracing the office of Home Secretary), I remain unconvinced they will get away with this one.
Here's a thought. I know enough to be able to design quite a good dirty bomb. Lots and lots of people like me also know this. Some could design a really, really good dirty bomb. My current application of my knowledge is to participate in the public consultation on the safety of new nuclear reactors. I'm trying to do my little bit to help prevent a terrorist attack, or indeed a straightforward criminal attack (my own view is that they should not be dignified as "terrorists" - they are simply violent criminals). Mr. Plod is not going to feel my collar. Unlike Peter Mandelson and his Government, Mr. Plod is not stupid.
*As a good atheist I feel justified in substituting the name of the best-known UK theorist of religion in this phrase.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
So, terrorism-related sites, discussion groups, etc. get taken "off the internet" (I assume they mean filtered from public access in Britain). This basically results in that information being accessible only to government authorities, but not to the public. I assume the authorities still want access to those sites, as they might give clues about planned attacks, etc.
We've already been drawn into war based on "secret information" which turned out to be false. This seems like just another opportunity for abuse of public trust and stifling public scrutiny of government decision-making.
I'm not talking about Joe Bloggs needing to know what terrorist and propaganda sites are out there, but certain people do. Journalists, academics, etc. Those important parts of public society that help us keep an eye on those we put in office. The power is ours, not the government's - we pay their salaries, they work for us. Yet they fail us on so many levels, and need to be constantly held to account.
Who is going to play that role, if the information is not there any more?
This is only a UK filter, so the sites are still "on the internet", but the principle should be raised.