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."
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.
Because they scare the sh*t out of me, and I'm pretty sure they're doing it to influence my vote.
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.'
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.
"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."
Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!
"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."
Could we cut them out by some kind of economic sanctions based on religious belief? Maybe just prevent them from owning businesses and stuff. Or deport them! Do you know if this plan has ever been tried before?
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
...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!
It's a very difficult problem, and the response of the three major parties is "Denial". All three say "Immigration and Islamisation are not a problem. We will not even consider them as issues. P.S. You are a racist." I see you have already been called a Nazi for posting this.
Which is ironic, because your post is a warning about the Nazis in their BNP form. The National Socialists recognise and acknowledge the issues that the main parties do not. They are capitalising on the refusal of the main parties to talk about the issues.
I think it is obvious now that the multiculturalism policy of the UK government has been a complete disaster. It's created ghettos. Entire cities like Birmingham and Bradford are divided by ethnic groupings. It's encouraged fear and hatred between the groups, fueling terrorism. It's exactly what should never have happened.
Immigrants should have been welcomed into Britain provided that they were willing to merge into the existing culture and society, as many immigrants are. But instead, they were encouraged to be separate from the existing societies. Ghettos were created, and any concern about the ghettoisation process was dismissed by the UK Establishment as "racism", even though the concerns were well-founded. And it's not just the UK. The same problems exist in France for the same reason.
It is time to abandon cultural relativism, the idea that each culture - each approach to life - is just as valid as any other. It is simply nonsense. Some cultures are inherently better than others. Absolute comparisons are possible and useful.
The UK Establishment tells us that such comparisons are "racist" - but why? What is racist about comparing one society and another? Racism is discrimination based on ethnic grouping, not discrimination based on social structure or cultural values.
It is our duty to discriminate against the values and culture of dark age theocracies. We must not allow the civilisation we have built to be undermined by Sharia and the Middle Eastern dictatorships. The only way to do that is to stick up for what we have, and that means we must all be able to acknowledge that our ways are better.
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
Following the links in TFA leads to a goverment web-page listing one-line descriptions of things they consider illegal. But their definitions are broken. They include this:
That would be...news sites? Maybe we should all report news.bbc.co.uk?
The British government isn't actually stupid enough to...
There is no true sentence which starts this way.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
No, but you're potentially advocating committing a crime under the Computer Misuse Act by encouraging people to launch a DDoS attack against the site...
It's official. Most of you are morons.