UK Police To Get Major New Powers To Seize Domains

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police To Get Major New Powers To Seize Domains

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday November 25, 2010 @07:27PM from the mine-now-I-take-it dept.

Stoobalou writes "British Police forces could soon have the power to seize any domain associated with criminal activity, under new proposals published today by UK domain registrar Nominet. At present, Nominet has no clear legal obligation to ensure that .uk domains are not used for criminal activities. That situation may soon change, if proposals from the Serious and Organized Crime Agency (SOCA) are accepted."

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just out of curiosity, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 19:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does that include Google?
1. Re:Just out of curiosity, by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2010-11-25 20:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  More ironically, does that include mil.uk
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
2. Re:Just out of curiosity, by davester666 · 2010-11-25 20:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, because they will present links to content which are covered by copyright's, patent's and trademark's.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
3. Re:Just out of curiosity, by Ash-Fox · 2010-11-25 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  More ironically, does that include mil.uk
  Your link is wrong, it doesn't even mention the .uk TLD.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
4. Re:Just out of curiosity, by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2010-11-25 20:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Your link is wrong, it doesn't even mention the .uk TLD.
  Yes, oddly enough, I looked long and hard for an article on British war crimes on mil.uk but couldn't find any...
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
5. Re:Just out of curiosity, by retchdog · 2010-11-25 20:58 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I've trademarked the grocers' apostrophe for my company: Sausage's and Apple's Inc.
  Cease and desist immediately.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
6. Re:Just out of curiosity, by jonbryce · 2010-11-25 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are looking for mod.uk. Nominet isn't responsible for allocating those domains. The Ministry of Defence is.
7. Re:Just out of curiosity, by Ash-Fox · 2010-11-26 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, oddly enough, I looked long and hard for an article on British war crimes on mil.uk but couldn't find any...
  Isn't that because the UK uses mod.uk for millitary (Ministry of Defense)?
  You should have started the search here:
  http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=war+crime+site%3Amod.uk
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
8. Re:Just out of curiosity, by Joce640k · 2010-11-26 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to seize my mother-in-law's domain that's fine by me.
  
  --
  No sig today...
9. Re:Just out of curiosity, by shnull · 2010-11-28 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  some colonial-era british mummy can't seem to forget about the days when britannia scourged the waves for pirates? Is this the prologue to the first war over a domain name since the country involved wouldn't close it down? These brittish fossils are getting a bit scary if you ask me, someone should stick them back where they belong : the past (where yes, they did rob and steal and commited crimes against humanity freely and hunted down 'pirates' for stealing from the crown). scary
  
  --
  beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
US does it already on much larger scale by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 19:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

US already seizes any .com .net .org domain too.
Thinking of it, maybe we should give this right to every country, including Iraq, China and North Korea.
1. Re:US does it already on much larger scale by tomhudson · 2010-11-25 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Really? They've seized goldmansachs.com, aig.com, and countrywidefinancial.com?
  No, they only seize certain domains that make them look good to seize, in a "think of the children" sense (where the voters are child-like sheeple). It's political.
2. Re:US does it already on much larger scale by Lanteran · 2010-11-26 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  like it matters. Everyone uses the .is domain, right? Right?
  
  --
  "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
A big deal by NaCh0 · 2010-11-25 19:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

Since the UK doesn't have freedom of speech like here in the US, this could really change the internet by creating a roadmap for other countries to follow.
1. Re:A big deal by SuricouRaven · 2010-11-25 20:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The UK does have freedom of speech protections, but they are implimented in a very different way. And are somewhat easier to overrule.
2. Re:A big deal by TheBlackMan · 2010-11-25 20:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So is it the time for alternative censorship-free DNS system yet ?
3. Re:A big deal by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2010-11-25 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Since the UK doesn't have freedom of speech like here in the US
  From what I read in The Economist I think I understand that libel laws are more strict in the UK. On the other hand, from what I read in Viz I would assume that the UK had no libel laws. Oh, one time they did issue a retraction for a comic strip titled, Thieving Gypsy Bastards.
  This comment raised an interesting question for me: The folks in the US tossed out the Brits around 1776+. But the UK ruled half of the world for a long time. Did any other countries chase them out? Rhodesia comes to mind, but what about Canada and Australia?
  Please, this is not meant in any offense to anyone from the UK, I'm just curious . . . and stupid!
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
4. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 20:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There were armed rebellions in a number of colonies, and peaceful ones (most notably under Gandhi in India) in others. Most of Ireland got independence in 1920 following centuries of strife; and after WWII the political will to hold Empire at all costs was no longer there; the vast majority of the colonies became independent in the late 50s or early 60s.
5. Re:A big deal by flimflammer · 2010-11-25 20:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't necessarily call it free under those terms. If I can get in trouble for merely saying something, I don't think it's really free speech. Freer speech than in some areas, but not necessarily free at it's foundation.
6. Re:A big deal by Chrisq · 2010-11-25 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  In the UK it is fine to say "down with freedom" and "enemies of Islam should die", but racist and provocative to suggest that the Qur'an might encourage terrorism
7. Re:A big deal by h4rm0ny · 2010-11-25 21:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There was a sort of shift in both British governmental policy and public attitudes combined with an inevitability of other nations gaining their independence. I guess the best way to put it might be that Britain saw the writing on the wall early enough that they decided to be smart about things and let go semi-gracefully. Take India as a case in point. There was no way that the British were going to be able to maintain their control over that country. The Indians could only be goverend in the first place because they weren't well organized and they had non-representative governments that could be suborned. The British government have always been bastards, but they've rarely been stupid except in the most enlightened frame of reference. The British had put down various resistance movements before in India (quite brutally), but when India as a whole started to say "no!", the British said: "okay, let's be friends". Many other cases are variations on that. The general policy was: "let's try and make the jump from ruler to leader". Success was variable and imperfect, but it preserved a lot of profitable trade for Britain, which was what it cared about most of all, it had the sympathy of the British public and, quite frankly, it made a lot more sense than anything else. Britain is a small land. It had the advantages of a well-organized, industrial-level populace and a fantastic Navy. They seized that opportunity and worked it till it was played out, then moved on when running costs became too high (rebellions, industrial action, et al.). Note that this is only the most general description. Posters could make a dozen small counter-examples of ugly instances of disengagement. The disintegration of India into India and Pakistan is one of the modern age's great tragedies.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
8. Re:A big deal by 91degrees · 2010-11-25 21:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  On the other hand, from what I read in Viz I would assume that the UK had no libel laws.
  
  There's the "reasonable man" test. In the case of Viz, would a reasonable man believe what he's reading to be true. since Viz is a crude comic, the newspaper style articles in Viz are entirely ridiculous parody, and clearly intended as such, it's unlikely that anyone would think it to be true.
  
  The extra "strictness" comes in two fronts. Firstly, the defendant needs to prove the allegations are true (not just that they believed they were true - journalists are meant to fact check), and secondly you can sue the author or the publication (not unresonable) or the publisher. There is legal opinion at least that a publisher includes everyone up to the retailer. In the case of online material, the fact that it's technically published everywhere it's accessed effectively gives British courts jusrisdiction over the entire internet. It's possible to sue an ISP over a usenet posting even if the posting originated from a user of a different ISP.
  
  After the American revolution, the British governmnet was a lot more open to greater independence in the other colonies since the War of Independence was something of an expensive embarrassment. In fact, even before 1776, there was reasonable support for representation of America in parliament.
9. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 22:03 · Score: 0
  
  Australia has self government while still acknowledging the nominal power of the British crown: it's a commonwealth realm. There is a tacit agreement: UK agrees to not to use that power and Australia agrees not to tell the UK to fuck right off. Australia should probably finish the job and become a republic, but there's no practical gain in that move at the moment. The nominal power operates through the monarch's representative and so the UK parlimentary government can't use it.
10. Re:A big deal by Voulnet · 2010-11-25 22:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Freedom of speech in the US? Are you kidding? Just today the US Gov't seized torrent domains and is actively trying to stop WikiLeaks.
11. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 22:50 · Score: 0
  
  You can always get in trouble for saying things, it's always a question of where you draw the line:
  "Hand me the money or I will kill you"
  "If I ever get the opportunity I will kill the president/king/PM"
  "Someone should kill all gay people"
  "Go and kill person x because I don't like him"
  "We should bring down the government by rebellion"
  "We should bring down the government by voting for another party"
  These are all things you could say that would have a different legal implication in different countries, I doubt that there is any country in the world where you could express all of them in a serious way and not get in trouble.
12. Re:A big deal by jonbryce · 2010-11-25 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  "Thieving Gypsy Bastards" doesn't refer to a specific identifiable person, so isn't covered by libel laws. It may be covered by racial hatred laws though.
13. Re:A big deal by Max+Romantschuk · 2010-11-25 23:29 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Merely saying is a bit like merely killing.
  I think it makes sense that speech should be restricted in the sense that actions are as well. It's not OK to hurt other people physically, and I think it should be no less OK to hurt people through speech. From another perspective one could argue that a society that restricts you from taking other people's lives as you see fit is not truly free, at least from the perspective of a single individual.
  The problem is determining what is actually hurtful. "I wish you we're dead you fucking cunt." might be anything from a joke, to a sexist and hurtful remark. "I'm going to kill you and rape your wife as she cries over your dead body." Is a pretty clear case of threatening someone.
  So the hard part is really determining where to draw the line. This is very much a cultural issue. Is it more free or less free to be free to hurt? I don't claim to know myself.
  
  --
  .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
14. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  Our laws are more flexible and more experimental. There is no perfect theoretical basis from which you can derive a good civilisation, you go with what works and keep trying to improve it.
  
  When our laws cause problems, we change them. If they're flawed in theory but in real world implementation do no harm, why bother?
15. Re:A big deal by Bobakitoo · 2010-11-25 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  The last one been Canada in 1982 with the Canada Act passed by the British Parliament.
16. Re:A big deal by dances+with+elks · 2010-11-26 00:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I think your view of history might be a little over simplified. The american revolution wasn't like hollywood, it was essentially one group of mainly british and irish people fighting another group of british and irish people. The colonists were fighting for their rights as englishmen, and many people in the british isles supported them in their struggle, at least until they invaded canada.
  Parts of the empire that were settled by colonists (New Zealand, Austrailia, Canada) were gradually encouraged to become more and more independent by britain. Developed areas gradually conquered by the british such as india and egypt (or more accurately, by indians with a few british and irish commanders) were exploited and post war nationalist movements got them to leave. Undeveloped unsettled areas such as the afican colonies britain was eager to get rid of in the 1960's as they spent far more money developing infrastructure than they ever extracted. Most of the colonial wars they fought they won (Malaysia, Kenya) but they didn't want to hold on to the colony, they usually just wanted to stop it being communist after they left. Ireland was partitioned after a successful war of indenpendence after WWI as it was effectively half settled (North Ireland) and half exploited.
  
  --
  Will wash cars for karma
17. Re:A big deal by Ash-Fox · 2010-11-26 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  If I can get in trouble for merely saying something, I don't think it's really free speech.
  
  Not much different in the US then, since you can get arrested for pointing out how to bomb the white house, for example, pointing out a BGM-109 in some specific window would deal the most damage and likely kill the most of people.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
18. Re:A big deal by airfoobar · 2010-11-26 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Even though freedom of speech is not written down like in the constitution, I'm sure it is still a valued right of the British people. We'll have to wait and see whether they'll cry foul over this, or whether they'll complacently sit back and allow their government to censor their internets.
19. Re:A big deal by tehcyder · 2010-11-26 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  This comment raised an interesting question for me: The folks in the US tossed out the Brits around 1776+. But the UK ruled half of the world for a long time. Did any other countries chase them out? Rhodesia comes to mind, but what about Canada and Australia?
  Please, this is not meant in any offense to anyone from the UK, I'm just curious . . . and stupid!
  Didn't they teach you in history class about the bloody Canadian and Australian wars of (attempted) independence? Why else do you think those two countries have such a low population density? We fucking nuked the shit out of most of the habitable areas and made them promise to keep the Queen as head of state just to rub their noses in it.
  Jesus, it was only a few years ago, you kids have such short attenion spans.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
20. Re:A big deal by Timmmm · 2010-11-26 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  You can get in trouble 'just for saying something' in the US too. You have libel, copyright, and discrimination laws that limit your speech a bit.
21. Re:A big deal by delinear · 2010-11-26 00:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's pretty much the same everywhere, though - whether it's enshrined in a written constitution or not. Every country has their own limits on speech, that might mean you can't speak out against the government, or it might mean you're not allowed to incite religious hatred, or make sexist comments. The UK is pretty free in terms of being able to criticise the government (verbally, at least, let's not get into the stupid laws on public assembly, etc), but does have the other limits that are supposedly there to help us all live together in a varied society. By your definition, I challenge you to find any country in the whole world that has truly free speech.
22. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  Can you say "blow up America" in an american airport?
  There you have your freedom of speech.
23. Re:A big deal by Threni · 2010-11-26 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  No we don't. We have nothing like what the US take for granted here. Not even close. In fact, the US has just brought in laws stopping their citizens for coming here to persue libel actions against US citizens. Libel laws is one half of our censorship (you can't even report on the fact that you've received an injunction from saying something about someone); the other half is National Security and the lack of a meaningful Freedom Of Information system. People in the UK routinely host stuff in the US (and elsewhere) for precisely this reason.
24. Re:A big deal by Brafil · 2010-11-26 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom as speech is not as flawless as you think. If it is in place, as in the US, some people will abuse it, for example by sharing videos where children are sexually abused. If it is not in place, other people will abuse it, in this case the government. If there is a restriction on certain websites, it is very unlikely that the government won't restrict other sites. That is the beginning of censorship in every country. The problem is finding a solution that has the least drawbacks, not the one that is perfect. If you can put ANYTHING on the web, expect others to use that right.
25. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, no free speech zones in the UK.
26. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  If I can get in trouble for merely saying something, I don't think it's really free speech.
  Fire in a theatre, libel, etc., blah blah blah, it's all relative.
27. Re:A big deal by metrix007 · 2010-11-26 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  You really should be modded troll, unless the above is simply due to ignorance.
  
  --
  If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
28. Re:A big deal by c6gunner · 2010-11-26 02:04 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Your comment hurt me deeply. I hope you get locked up forever.
29. Re:A big deal by gnud · 2010-11-26 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  WikiLeaks is a reasonable point, but torrents really do not fall under free speech. You may well disagree with laws concerning copyright, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.
30. Re:A big deal by gfreeman · 2010-11-26 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  the US has just brought in laws stopping their citizens for coming here to persue libel actions against US citizens.
  Oh the irony.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
31. Re:A big deal by fast+turtle · 2010-11-26 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Please, this is not meant in any offense to anyone from the UK, I'm just curious . . . and stupid!If you were stupid, you'd not be asking the question at all. In this case, You are asking in order to reduce your ignorance and that's a good thing.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
32. Re:A big deal by julesh · 2010-11-26 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  In the UK it is fine to say [...] "enemies of Islam should die"
  Err... no it isn't. You can find several prominent examples of people who have been prosecuted for essentially this exact thing (this was the first) .
  but racist and provocative to suggest that the Qur'an might encourage terrorism
  So how come Christopher Hitchens, who has published a popular book with exactly that thesis (among others) has never been arrested because of it?
  People do spout crap about freedom of speech in the UK, when the position really isn't that bad.
33. Re:A big deal by julesh · 2010-11-26 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  If I can get in trouble for merely saying something, I don't think it's really free speech.
  I don't think there are any jurisdictions where it is impossible to break the law through speech. For instance, all jursidictions I'm aware of would consider offering to pay somebody to kill another person an offence. The question then becomes merely one of where the line is drawn: in the US, for example, it is drawn at the point where specific offenses are being encouraged. In the UK, it's a little further down, in that there doesn't need to be a specific offense in mind, but merely the kind of speech that is likely to cause offenses of certain kinds (notably, terrorist attacks), or which is intended to cause other people to hate a certain group.
  I happen to believe that the correct place to draw that line is likely to be somewhere between these two, but the UK position isn't far enough wrong for it to be a major problem, IMO.
34. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  I dare say that if Assange published leaks on Russia or China or Mexican drug cartels he'd disappear without a trace. May be even before publishing the leaks.
  US reaction so far was very modest.. even if the rape investigation was of their doing - which may or may not be the case.
35. Re:A big deal by internewt · 2010-11-26 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, no free speech zones in the UK.
  Apart from the real biggie - everywhere but Parliament Square. And on the pavement on the same side of the road as that weapons manufacturer in Brighton. And anywhere else where organisations have taken out injunctions against people who's opinions stand in the way of their profits or agenda.
  Our pigs these days appear to like to practice kettling - the boxing in of protests and then moving them out the way. The principle is pretty much the same as free speech zones[1], and both methods are probably effective, from the bourgeois' point of view.
  Protesters need to come up with some methods of defeating kettling. Perhaps sitting down where they are as soon as kettling begins, so the police have to use force if they want people to move? Perhaps protests should be smaller, but lots of them. Ketting works because the pigs box in the whole protest, so will not work if the protesters surround the police, or the police can't surround the protesters.
  Many small protests would be hard to manage, but if a small protest starts getting kettled, other protests can move towards the first, hopefully breaking the police lines. Protests would need some excellent coordinating, because the reason the kettling works now is due to the police's organisation and coordination. Perhaps protesters need some police spotters about the place, updating an on line resource so protesters can keep track of the police? Just don't host that resource behind a .uk! (Whew, got the rant back on topic!).
  [1] Such a stunningly Orwellian name!
  
  --
  Car analogies break down.
36. Re:A big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-29 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  In fact, even before 1776, there was reasonable support for representation of America in parliament
  Well, the Foxites (as in Charles James Fox) campaigned for that, but were a minority in Parliament. This was a real issue, in that the Englishmen in the colonies wanted to exercise ALL their rights as Englishmen, and were annoyed by the Tories' absentee ballot system requiring personal attendance to cast a vote in the home constituency (i.e., you have to be physically in England to vote) coupled with deliberately shortened intervals from the Dissolution Order to the Election Writ to election day -- in effect, the Tories managed to prevent a lot of Whigs from exercising their right to vote by making sure that it was physically improbable by virtue of the time to move news and people across the Atlantic.
  Note that this only applied to a minority of men in the colonies -- there were plenty of people who were not English living in the 13 colonies at the time. Fox and Franklin coughed up the idea of taking advantage of this lack of franchise and the non-Parliamentary nature of the political systems most non-English colonists had grown up under by demonizing the George III as a tyrant, despite the reality that the king had precious little personal political power and had influence among the Tories that was rapidly waning in light of embarrassments his more overt backroom politicking caused them (especially during the Seven Years War).
  Indeed, the king wanted to engage with the colonial legislatures during that war, hoping to be able to influence them "around the back" of the Whigs, trying to hurry the destabilization of the Duke of Newcastle's government in favour of Pitt and then Bute's Tories. This was somewhat successful but antagonized the House of Commons enough that the king was further constrained from undirected activity.
  Grenville (whig) was stuck with having to maintain an armed peace in the aftermath of the Seven Years' War and the Stamp Act was squarely aimed at the colonial governments that benefited from and openly favoured its prosecution, as well as those colonial governments campaigning for a westward expansion with direct support from the British Army. The general line taken by Grenville's ministry was essentially: "if you want the British Army protecting you from the people you're displacing, you're going to have to (a) pay for them and (b) shelter them until more permanent facilities can be established (that you should also pay for)." Additionally, Grenville proposed direct and indirect representation of the Englishmen and colonial legislatures in Westminster; this was picked up and run with by Fox.
  Pitt wasn't stupid and tried to curry favour in the colonies by repealing the Stamp Act; he was succeeded by Grafton who was left with a budgetary crisis that he mitigated somewhat, but which led to North's tories regaining power, and North reversed the favour-currying colonial tax-cutting. This failed spectacularly with English judges supporting the no-taxation-without-representation arguments made by individual colonial Englishmen and colonial legislatures, so North began to eliminate a wide series of customs duties and so forth. Worse, the Quebec Act (1774) ended up enraging the English colonists to the south both because of the much stronger codification of local governance within Quebec compared to the other colonies with no obvious prospect of similar primary legislation beneficial to them coming from Westminster, and also (sadly) because of amazing anti-Catholic religious bigotry (even among several Founding Fathers). Indeed it was on the basis of establishing Catholicism and removing references to Protestantism in loyalty oaths that the Quebec Act was listed as one of the Intolerable Acts by the Sons of Liberty. (Other Independence-minded groups opposed the Quebec Act for different reasons, including the boundaries drawn between Quebec and the 13 colonies that favoured Quebec and Canada).
  Consequently:
UK only? by MrQuacker · 2010-11-25 19:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

I can't understand TFA. Does this give the registrar power to steal only .co.uk domains, or any TLD that's registered with them?
1. Re:UK only? by VJ42 · 2010-11-25 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  I can't understand TFA. Does this give the registrar power to steal only .co.uk domains, or any TLD that's registered with them?
  Nominet administers all *.uk domains, but only *.uk domains, so .com, .org etc. will be unaffected.
  
  --
  If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Game over by jethr0211 · 2010-11-25 19:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Well I guess that's it for the bad guys. Now they'll have no way to register their evil domains.
1. Re:Game over by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2010-11-25 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Evil domains?
  I soooo want doctor.evil and dontbe.evil.
  And maybe hearno.evil, seeno.evil and speakno.evil too.
  I'll make a fortune...
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Laughable by c0lo · 2010-11-25 19:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

TFA:

Two weeks ago, Fitwatch, a site dedicated to campaigning against what it sees as heavy-handed practices by police surveillance units, was taken down by its UK-based web hosting company,

With its domain name suspended, the only way for visitors to find a rogue site would be to type in its lengthy (and decidedly less memorable) numeric IP address.
This shows how well prepared is the british police to deal with matters regarding the internet: I reckon they never heard of the hosts file or, for an URL only, favorites.
Such simple minds... life for them must be a permanent bliss.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
1. Re:Laughable by SuricouRaven · 2010-11-25 20:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'd have thought it more than effective to just take down the domain, thus rendering every hit for the site on google unavailable. Almost all people searching would give up at that point.
2. Re:Laughable by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2010-11-25 20:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This shows how well prepared is the british police to deal with matters regarding the internet: I reckon they never heard of the hosts file or, for an URL only, favorites. Such simple minds... life for them must be a permanent bliss.
  They're simple minds eh? Do you know what irony is?
  Many, many rogues sites don't have a fixed IP.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
3. Re:Laughable by Arancaytar · 2010-11-25 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Also, OpenNIC.
4. Re:Laughable by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 20:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  TFA - So your definition of a sophisticated mind does not encompass one that can deal with murdered children, mob control, terrorism or any other of the myriad issues a modern police officer has to deal with.. in your world if you are not IT savvy you are a "simpleton"? What an infantile, one dimensional little mind that you have. Grow up, fool.
5. Re:Laughable by c0lo · 2010-11-25 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  They're simple minds eh? Do you know what irony is?
  Let's see... How the solutions you listed work in the conditions of TDL DNS refusing to identify the domain as registered?
  Ah, I see, not only that you need to host your site elsewhere, but you need to raise a rogue DNS (outside the official hierarchy) and ask everyone interested in your site to trust it?
  
  Many, many rogues sites don't have a fixed IP.
  (methinks: the specific difference between these guys and rogue sites: their listeners. The bot herder sites can afford to use rogue DNS-es, after all the ones to trust the rogue DNS are the pieces of malware infecting the computers).
  But tell you what: let's see if we can come with better ways to fail their scheme. Who's picking the gauntlet?
  Here's an idea (DNS using SEO techniques): how about a group of sympathizers include in their web pages links to the IP-only URL but associating it with the name of the site (or an improbable search phrase in the content of the site)? Then Google will do the job and sorta act as a DNS substitute.
  Will they seize google.co.uk?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
6. Re:Laughable by JockTroll · 2010-11-25 20:52 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Loserboy nerd, IT is vital knowledge in the modern world and anyone who wishes to do well in an IT-dominated era will endeavour to learn as much as they can. Knowledge is power, and the more power you have the less chances of being a victim there are. Anyone wishing to be a good cop will learn as much as possible in his or her field and IT is among the knowledge now required because a lot of evidence will be residing on computers. Police officers need to know how to deal with them, and they know to understand how the internet works. It's not that if you're not IT savvy you're a simpleton (it's relatively easy to be IT savvy, it's not aerospace engineering), it's that if you're ignorant in matters that shape your life everyday you're a simpleton. Dismissed, loserboy nerd. Shit on your own face, I can't be bothered.
  
  --
  Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
7. Re:Laughable by c0lo · 2010-11-25 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  If their sympathizers are determined, I don't think this is going to do.
  Here: just include in the content of a page of the site an improbable search phrase and send the page to Google for indexing. All it takes is a few links from outside (say, ten sympathizers linking from 40 sites/forums/slashdot) and, together with the improbable search phrase your site will be the top of Google search.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
8. Re:Laughable by MichaelSmith · 2010-11-25 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Or alternate root DNS servers?
  You know, that used to sound like a really stupid idea. Now I am not so sure.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
9. Re:Laughable by c0lo · 2010-11-25 21:10 · Score: 0, Troll
  TFA - So your definition of a sophisticated mind does not encompass one that can deal with murdered children, mob control, terrorism or any other of the myriad issues a modern police officer has to deal with.. in your world if you are not IT savvy you are a "simpleton"? What an infantile, one dimensional little mind that you have. Grow up, fool.
  LOL... Take care, AC, you'll run pretty quick of straws at the rate you are building your arguments.
  Let's see. I don't know what Fitwatch is about, but I imagine:
  
  if Fitwatch are non-legit, the british police does a pretty crappy job not going to arrest them and just (ineffectively) trying to silence them. Does it seem to you as a very sophisticated and grown up approach from their side? Addressing a manifestation and not the cause of the problem?
  
  if Fitwatch are just "speech criminals", defending the british police in their actions doesn't seem to me as being a grown-up reaction from your side, mate. Or is the IngSoc starting to become a reality already?
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
10. Re:Laughable by AmiMoJo · 2010-11-25 21:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I reckon they never heard of the hosts file or, for an URL only, favorites.
  Nor have most ordinary users either. Suspending a domain name is a pretty effective way of barring access to a site. Links from other sites and search engines will also fail to work until they update. Google does not seem to be very fond of sites hosting on IP addresses with no associated domain name so it will undoubtable affect the site's ranking too.
  Hopefully this will end up in court and the police will be forced to stop pulling this kind of bullshit. I'm not holding my breath though.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Laughable by c0lo · 2010-11-25 21:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Or alternate root DNS servers?
  You know, that used to sound like a really stupid idea. Now I am not so sure.
  Others are sure of the contrary.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
12. Re:Laughable by c0lo · 2010-11-25 21:59 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Or alternate root DNS servers?
  You know, that used to sound like a really stupid idea. Now I am not so sure.
  Here mate. Just put the entry most convenient to you as the first entry in your DNS list.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
13. Re:Laughable by PhilHibbs · 2010-11-25 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you can take a step that only solves 95% of a problem, that doesn't mean the step is not worth taking. Of course this can be used for good or bad - I don't think that a site such as Fitwatch should be taken down, although advising people to get rid of the clothing they were wearing to avoid being identified by law enforcement is pretty close to the edge, but there are plenty of scam and spam sites that I would not shed a tear over.
14. Re:Laughable by dunkelfalke · 2010-11-25 23:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The coppers dealing with murdered children are not the same ones who are doing the mob control, and those of them who deal with internet are again different people with different specialisations.
  So those who are actually responsible for the thing this discussion is about, should be IT savvy. If they are not, then they are simpletons indeed.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
15. Re:Laughable by mapkinase · 2010-11-26 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  Remember, they started with "Islamic extremist" websites. Like pastor said.
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
16. Re:Laughable by sempir · 2010-11-26 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  And your point is.............?
  
  --
  A closed mouth gathers no foot.
17. Re:Laughable by delinear · 2010-11-26 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct - Google is already sort of doing this anyway, because a large number of people type not only the name but even the URL, of the site they want to visit directly into Google, rather than using the address bar (even though it means an extra step unless you use the search bar). If people linked to the site with the URL, i.e. www.google.com then it would probably top the search results for people trying to access it that way. So long as you set up the page titles correctly so the site's "name" is in the snippet returned in the search results, the average user wouldn't even notice they were viewing the site via an IP address.
18. Re:Laughable by delinear · 2010-11-26 00:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Generally different departments deal with the things you listed, so it's not like one person is expected to have knowledge of the whole gamut. Additionally, when the people murdering children, forming mobs or planning terrorist atrocities are using technology to help with the logistics or to keep ahead of the authorities, it is absolutely the duty of said authorities to make themselves aware of how such technology works, or at least have a department of geeks responsible for doing so and filter all of your ideas through them to ensure technical feasibility.
19. Re:Laughable by GameboyRMH · 2010-11-26 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Muahahahaha thanks for pointing me to another component for my community-run Internet idea!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
20. Re:Laughable by Sean · 2010-11-26 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Here we go... the end of the global name space is here.
21. Re:Laughable by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 05:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  That would be true if the people taking down that domain ever dealt with murdered children, mob control, terrorism, or any other of the myriad issues a modern police officer has to deal with... If they don't know that removing a domain name doesn't remove the site completely, they should hire at least *one* person who does. If they don't have anyone on staff (a staff of *thousands*), then they obviously aren't prepared to deal with matters regarding the internet...
  Also, I'd reckon most policemen never have to deal with murdered children, mob control, or terrorism. That's why they generally have special teams devoted to those things. Most (UK) policemen don't get a gun either, they aren't allowed to join in pursuits, etc, because they have special teams that train specifically for those jobs. If we expect those teams to be experts at those jobs that don't ever deal with those myriad issues, why can't we similarly expect their internet team to be experts at matters dealing with the internet without ever dealing with those myriad issues?
  That you jump in, begin throwing around scary words (murdered children! terrorism! the boogeyman!) and insulting the poster without adding any sort of actual argument and without showing any sort of knowledge of how police forces work, is pretty infantile.
  And how the hell did you get moderated "Insightful"?
Disappointing by antifoidulus · 2010-11-25 19:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

They haven't seized paypal yet? If the people running that site aren't criminals then I don't know who is.

--
Monstar L
1. Re:Disappointing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  Who the hell marked this as troll? Paypal ARE criminals, they steal peoples money all the damn time!
  Then people whine like kids on their blogs because "waah, i didn't read the small print, they aren't a bank, they can use my money as toilet paper if they wanted to".
2. Re:Disappointing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  I approve of this. They are a remarkably dishonest company.
  One great example is that when I ship to the US and they freeze my funds for 21 days (oh and then 5-7 more BUSINESS days to get into my account for a total sometimes over a month). They have as their policy for years that they will release the funds if it's shipped to a confirmed address, with tracking and once it arrives. But they don't if you're shipping internationally. Why wouldn't they update this? Especially after they receive complaints (like from me)
3. Re:Disappointing by Ash-Fox · 2010-11-26 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Who the hell marked this as troll? Paypal ARE criminals, they steal peoples money all the damn time!
  Maybe if reasonable sources were cited and by reasonable I mean a source like the BBC, not some person's raging blog.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
4. Re:Disappointing by GameboyRMH · 2010-11-26 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine a libertarian could consider Paypal to be a reputable business (their contract does basically say they can use your money for toilet paper), maybe that's why the GP was modded troll...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
5. Re:Disappointing by TheThiefMaster · 2010-11-26 02:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Paypal EU is a bank, has been for years.
6. Re:Disappointing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  They haven't seized paypal yet? If the people running that site aren't criminals then I don't know who is.
  They're worse than that. They're financiers!
Just curious about the department name by Centurix · 2010-11-25 19:55 · Score: 3, Funny

I can only assume there's a Mildly Worrying Organised Crime Agency?

--
Task Mangler
1. Re:Just curious about the department name by c0lo · 2010-11-25 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  I can only assume there's a Mildly Worrying Organised Crime Agency?
  Just MiniLuv. The Minitrue is on the way.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:Just curious about the department name by Errol+backfiring · 2010-11-25 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  How dare you make fun of the Humorous and Organized Crimes Agency?
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
3. Re:Just curious about the department name by radio4fan · 2010-11-26 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  The Silly and Disorganised Crime Agency were hoping to make a proposal involving rotating bow-ties and fart cushions, but the meeting never really got past the custard-pie-throwing stage.
4. Re:Just curious about the department name by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  No; everything else is covered by the Humorous Crime Agency and the Disorganised Crime Agency.
  Pedant point: SOCA is the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, not the Serious and Organized Crime Agency.
And what about Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 19:56 · Score: 0

Even criminals need to get Windows updates.
1. Re:And what about Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Even criminals need to get Windows updates.
  Pfft, all criminals use linux. Its just a hacker's tool after all.
It has started already by Andy+Smith · 2010-11-25 19:59 · Score: 4, Informative

They've already done it without legal backing. The US-hosted, UK-centric police monitoring site FitWatch was closed by the British police, by simply asking the US host to remove it. The police officially objected to a single article, so requested that the whole site be closed for 12 months. The host complied.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/16/student-anti-police-website-closed
1. Re:It has started already by abigsmurf · 2010-11-25 21:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's nothing wrong with the police asking. It's the host's fault for caving in without a court order.
  
  It's just like there's nothing wrong with police asking if they can look inside your house without a warrant. you just say no and they have to go get a warrant if they have good reason to need to search your house (unless of course there's evidence of a crime in progress)
2. Re:It has started already by bedwards · 2010-11-25 21:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Key phrase in the guardian article:
  
  The Fitwatch blogpost, which last night had reappeared on several other websites
  They had this problem a while back with the company Trafigura who tried to remove information regarding their activities that was in the public domain. It was available in hundreds of places within the hour.
  Usually people do not replicate information, instead pointing to the origional source. Only when the origional information is threatened with censorship is it replacted to the point of it not being able to be removed.
  Of course - being able to shut down domains such as www.facebookaccounts2010.co.uk, preventing idiots from giving away all their credit card details is probably quite a good thing.
  It is too bad that in the hands of the Serious Organised Crime Agency; a department with the ability to violate almost every one of our civil liberties (car-number plate tracking, Bank snooping, hidden CCTV cameras to name but a few) but not it would seem the ability to make a single dent in the crime felt by any community, my less than competent friends will still be able to hand their data over to www.facebookaccounts.co.uk whilst I read material I do not particularly care about becuase "they" wanted to stop me reading it, and giggle at the absurdity of trying to censor the internet.
3. Re:It has started already by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  ell these guy the genie cant be put back in the bottle.
  There is no such thing as 'Criminal Activity' until the matter has gone before a court and a Judge.
  Things like companies and websites cannot be 'Individuals' and cannot be criminal.
  To accuse such things is libelous and a trespass of property. Maybe something constitutional about seizing property without compensation (there is a defined process - can't be done by order of the ruler/king alone).
  At best one might claim the 'article' has problems and go after the author (individual).
  The predictable outcome: Sites will post links, and the real hosts will be mirrored in several countries so a Pirate Bay like strike wins a few days before it is up again.If they ever to a coordinated take down that actually works - the next phoenix will be botnet hosted sites.
4. Re:It has started already by Errol+backfiring · 2010-11-25 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes there is. If someone in a police uniform ask you something, you are more inclined to do it. After all, it is an official law enforcer. I'd say this is abuse of power.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
5. Re:It has started already by 6031769 · 2010-11-25 23:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's not quite correct. It was the UK host which complied with the police request. The site is now hosted in the USA for precisely the reason that the British police can't touch it.
  
  --
  Burns: We're building a casino!
  McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
6. Re:It has started already by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 23:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's nothing wrong with the police asking. It's the host's fault for caving in without a court order.
  
  Sorry, but are you really that stupid? Of course there's also something wrong with the police asking! Yes, the hoster is to blame for caving in, but the police - the ones who actually made a demand that's decidedly unethical and quite possibly illegal, one that tramples the principles of free speech, freedom of opinion, and democracy and liberty - are blameless? They did nothing wrong?
  Words fail me.
7. Re:It has started already by chrb · 2010-11-25 23:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  It's hard to have sympathy for a site ("fitwatch") that promotes violent protest. The Guardian's perspective on violent protest is a bit hypocritical too:
  The Guardian is strongly critical of violent protest when done by the English Defence League. (And they should be, the EDL is basically just a modern remake of the National Front, and is attracting the same mix of football hooligans, fascist skinheads, and other assorted nutters).
  The Guardian does not appear to criticise the violent protests by students (which, in reality, are probably not students - real students don't tend to wave anarchist flags), including the attempted murder where a fire extinguisher was thrown down onto at a police officer from the top of a building.
  The Guardian appears to support the author of "fitwatch" (the article you linked), which publishes counter-intelligence on the Police Forward Intelligence Teams (the same guys who are also responsible for policing violent protests by the fascists, football hooligans, anarchists, etc.)
  Violent protest is usually counterproductive. If these people really wanted to win, then martyrdom is where it's at. Imagine 100 students on hunger strike outside the Houses of Parliament. That would win the argument. But of course, they won't do that, because it would mean actually putting your supposed ideals before your own well being.
  When it comes to policing protests, do you want police that actually do the job regardless of the source of public disorder, or do you want police who do the job when you disagree with the protesters (EDL) but do nothing when you agree (students/anarchists)? The second is an immature point of view, but appears to be the one espoused by the Guardian.
8. Re:It has started already by abigsmurf · 2010-11-26 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I am more inclined to help a police officer. But that's my choice. Plenty of people also chose not to help the police. Either way, you don't have to do what the police ask unless they've been granted the power by the courts.
  
  If you don't know your rights that's your problem. If you're running and ISP and you don't have a basic idea about what your legal rights are, frankly you shouldn't be running an ISP.
9. Re:It has started already by abigsmurf · 2010-11-26 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Gotcha, you think police should never be able to ask anyone anything without a warrant or court order. I hope you realise how utterly unhelpful and useless that would make police officers.
  
  "oh sorry, we couldn't catch the guy we saw steal your wallet because he ran around a corner and we couldn't ask anyone which way he went without a court order"
  
  "Sorry, you got beaten up by your neighbour, we knew he was incredibly annoyed by your loud music but we couldn't ask if you would keep the noise level down until we'd filed the paperwork and got a senior officer to ok it"
10. Re:It has started already by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  Not at all.
  It is still a request, and it is your choice whether or not to acede to that request.
11. Re:It has started already by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Fitwatch don't promote violent protest. They track and record the behaviour of police FIT teams, and promote peaceful obstruction of them. The reason is because FIT were intentionally goading protestors into violence, as it provided an excuse to send in the riot police.
  FIT have nothing to do with responsible policing of protests.
12. Re:It has started already by Lanteran · 2010-11-26 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yes, it'll be safe in the good 'ol US of A.
  
  --
  "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Police State by im+just+cannonfodder · 2010-11-25 20:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The imperial march further into the police state continues, soon you'll lose your right to trial by jury, be logged on some huge data base, sections of the population will be segregated, forced to move from the desirable areas into slums then the trains to the gas/torture chambers will start.......

--
The Truth Is Out There:
1. Re:Police State by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 21:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  soon you'll lose your right to trial by jury, be logged on some huge data base, sections of the population will be segregated, forced to move from the desirable areas into slums then the trains to the gas/torture chambers will start.......
  Are you being ironic? Because as it happens, every one of these is the case in the UK except the gas chambers.
  Right to trial by jury - 28 day detention/recent use of this power/"Kettling" of students as young as 15 on demonstrations for 12+ hours at a time - did you know this particular policing technique originated in Nazi Poland to force Jews to the gas chamber? :/
  Logged on some huge database - Police DNA database (they take a sample if merely questioning you and will lie about removing the data - EU has to get involved and force them), TV licensing, DVLA, Council Tax, Electoral register, etc, etc - in most of these cases the operating body also sells an edited version of the database to private companies for targeted mailing or other purposes.
  Sections of the population segregated - Largely propaganda driven in the media against certain groups/ethnicities; in particular the Muslim population has been targeted for example by CCTV
  Forced to move into slums - The new government is stripping out housing benefit and cutting down the length of time you can 'own' social housing to two years minimum (previously they were owned for life) and if your earning power increases above an arbitrary threshold they'll toss you out; the Conservative mayor of London even finds this unpalatable ) and predicts that it will lead to the cities becoming the preserve of the rich and white.
  So yeah, no gas chambers just yet, but I'm sure some bright spark will suggest it as a way to cut down on the money spent in fuel subsidies for pensioners or whatever soon enough.
  Posting AC because I really don't have any faith in this country any more.
2. Re:Police State by Ash-Fox · 2010-11-25 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  did you know this particular policing technique originated in Nazi Poland to force Jews to the gas chamber? :/
  Yes, but not to protect the citizens due to extreme risk involved as mentioned on the article you sourced.
  
  EU has to get involved and force them
  Honestly, if the EU can't even account for 90% of their budget, creates laws that destroyed habeas corpus, removed judgement by their peers in various circcumstances... What makes you think that they're not corrupt enough to stop this when it's within their interests?
  
  Largely propaganda driven in the media against certain groups/ethnicities; in particular the Muslim population has been targeted for example by CCTV
  I can't really comment on this, since I don't have the data they have that profiles terrorists, I don't see you having it either.
  
  The new government is stripping out housing benefit and cutting down the length of time you can 'own' social housing to two years minimum (previously they were owned for life) and if your earning power increases above an arbitrary threshold they'll toss you out
  There are different view points, "New council house tenants could lose their homes within two years if they get a job, and local authorities will be able stop social housing going to those who fall behind repeatedly with their rent". If you're failing to pay your rent, it's because you're not spending the money you were given to pay the rent to begin with. The requirement to move after two years of having a job is to free up homes for the ones who actually need the accomodation and are unable to afford it on their own. The problem the govnernment faces is that they build a lot of new council homes, people move in when they're vulnerable and never move out, which means the government needs to build even more homes for the people living off benefits because the government cannot afford to buy the vacant homes from the already pre-existing home market out there for each individual - Buying such homes only reinforces them to stay in them while living off the government money. The council houses were never meant to be lifetime homes to any given individuals. Of course there is the counter argument that people who get a job don't become fully self sufficient within two years, but regardless, I am not seeing this whole implied 'sky is falling'.
  
  Posting AC because I really don't have any faith in this country any more.
  Honestly, countries need more than faith to run properly. The UK isn't exactly a perfect place, but I have lived in other countries and the UK at the moment has a far less screwed up government compared to Poland for example - Yet the people of Poland are managing and are working on improving things. This whole faith thing doesn't do much for anyone.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
3. Re:Police State by tehcyder · 2010-11-26 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Posting AC because I really don't have any faith in this country any more.
  Hi Dave, how's it going mate?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
4. Re:Police State by delinear · 2010-11-26 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Scarily, as you point out, all the other things are already happening and the last point was trains to gas chambers, and just yesterday the government announced massive expenditure (in the middle of a global recession) on upgrading the train services.
5. Re:Police State by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  The imperial march further into the police state continues, soon you'll lose your right to trial by jury, be logged on some huge data base, sections of the population will be segregated, forced to move from the desirable areas into slums then the trains to the gas/torture chambers will start.......
  Your joking right?
  In all seriousness though, I am the first one to cry out when the government is infringing on our civil liberties for no good reason but what is described in the article seems like pretty common sense to me. The flaw in this that needs to be amended is that it should require a court order and not merely a request from the police. If a court order is required, it would just be bringing the internet in line with residential and commercial property law.
  I think it muddys the debate somewhat and makes us liberals look ridiculous if we start acting like children whenever any new law / police powers are suggested. We have to debate each proposal on it's merits.
6. Re:Police State by the_womble · 2010-11-26 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  There are more serious examples of the ending of the right to trial by jury:
  1) The home secretary has the power, at her sole discretion, to cancel the British citizenship of anyone with dual nationality, effectively sending them into exile, quite possibly permanently separating them from their family etc.
  2) Police powers to detain people for questioning for far longer than was allowed in the past - effectively imprisonment without trial
  3) Extensive powers to seize property for investigation, which can mean significant financial losses
7. Re:Police State by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-28 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm. See if you can spot the difference between these two statements:
  1. "Citizens x, y and z must move to a designated area."
  2. "The state will not indefinitely pay unlimited amounts for your housing. Sorry, but eventually you'll have to find a place you can actually afford."
  Then you cite "propaganda... against certain groups/ethnicities" by linking to a BBC article arguing that Muslims are unfairly targeted. That's an interesting interpretation of "propaganda".
  Seriously, there's an awful lot of bollocks talked about the UK on Slashdot. It's not perfect, but if you think it's in the same league - heck, if you think it's even playing the same fecking sport - as the fascist regimes of the 20th century, then you are in serious need of some perspective.
Illegal - yes; irritant - no by Alain+Williams · 2010-11-25 20:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

If a domain is really being used for illegal activity then I can support this. However: if it is just an irritant to the police/government/... then leave it well alone. Nomient is asking

whether safeguards are necessary (an appeals process, for example)
-- boggle! Of course there must be an appeals process.
The UK is becoming worse, there is a proposal by the home secretary to throw someone out of his house even if there was not enough evidence to charge; this is going to be abused by wifes who want a divorce -- get the bloke out on made up complaints of violence; by the time that he would be allowed back in she will have started the legal process and grabbed the property and stopped him seeing the kids.
1. Re:Illegal - yes; irritant - no by delinear · 2010-11-26 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's even worse than that where the absue is happening - the police can arbitrarily decide to ban the accused from the house, even if the alleged victim doesn't want to press charges. Do they think that throwing out an abusive husband is going to result in anything other than a severe increase in the number of abused wives who are beaten to death? How do they think these already abusive men are going to react in that situation! They already have severe issues and now they're going to see the person they take those out on as being responsible for putting them out of their home and potentially their jobs, etc. does anyone think they'll react with anything other than violence? The correct response is to give the abused person the support and help they need to get the abuser out of their lives, not to just drop a huge bomb on the situation then walk away and leave it to explode. Unless they're willing to leave 24/7 protection at the house, that's effectively what they'll be doing.
2. Re:Illegal - yes; irritant - no by u38cg · 2010-11-26 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Completely ignoring the widespread evidence from a number of other countries that do exactly this - you does it. Well done.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
3. Re:Illegal - yes; irritant - no by Alain+Williams · 2010-11-26 01:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You miss my point -- all too often the abuse is claimed just to get the bloke out of the house. Very often is has not happened. If there is an allegation the police will remove the man, in 40% of cases it is the woman who is violent -- they still remove the man.
  If there is real violence then it must be dealed with, what happens today is all too often one sided.
4. Re:Illegal - yes; irritant - no by misexistentialist · 2010-11-26 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  The law is flexible enough that anything can be illegal. Libel and copyright violations can apply to any website. Sometimes this a good thing, since evidence and reason don't always line up with order--sometimes the husband really is an abusive asshole even though he can't be proven as such--but mostly the law is misapplied with society's approval, since from the majority's perspective punishing the dangerous individual is much more important than protecting the harmless one.
5. Re:Illegal - yes; irritant - no by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-27 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Um, if it's illegal, they can get a conviction in court. As people have unfortunately established, domains are enough like property to make unilateral action inappropriate. If you prove that the owner was a criminal, but the domain name wasn't for inherently criminal purposes, then it should remain under the control of the owner.
  It's like the orgs that took over Oink.CD and redirected it to a police scare message. That was hijacking, pure and simple, and SHOULD be illegal.
Serious and Organized Crime Agency by Arancaytar · 2010-11-25 20:14 · Score: 3, Funny

Do you need to own a fluffy cat and a monocle to join?
1. Re:Serious and Organized Crime Agency by Shag · 2010-11-25 20:19 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Those things are optional, as long as you're serious. And organized.
  
  --
  Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
2. Re:Serious and Organized Crime Agency by Drumster · 2010-11-25 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  *nod* *nod*
3. Re:Serious and Organized Crime Agency by Eudial · 2010-11-25 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  I've always thought the American "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" felt crude. Thanks Britain for bringing some class.
  
  --
  GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
4. Re:Serious and Organized Crime Agency by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  and yet our police departments are niether but still manage to commit crimes!
5. Re:Serious and Organized Crime Agency by JockTroll · 2010-11-26 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" shouldn't be a bureau. It should be a store.
  
  --
  Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
6. Re:Serious and Organized Crime Agency by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  I've always wanted my own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I would fit nicely in between my Wardrobe of Pornography and my Filing Cabinet of Rock Music.
Dear police, by rew · 2010-11-25 20:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dear Police,
Please be informed that not just one but multiple criminals use the domains Hotmail.co.uk and yahoo.co.uk. Please disable these immediately to prevent further crimes from occurring. (and they annoy the hell out of me).
1. Re:Dear police, by Dunbal · 2010-11-25 20:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm sure the Nigerian prince has diplomatic immunity. Besides, I'm getting 100,000,000,000,000 dollars in the mail soon.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Dear police, by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-11-25 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget that Google is heavily responsible for easily directing people to torrents of copyrighted material, the tools to download them, has (hyper)links to terrorist-related websites, bomb plans, poisons, fighting techniques, urban warfare, and articles of hate speech.
  
  I wish you all the best.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
3. Re:Dear police, by Vernes · 2010-11-25 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  No points to add +1 Funny. So: Hahaha!
4. Re:Dear police, by sempir · 2010-11-26 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  I think you should keep an eye on that lot down at Slash Dot.orgy..... I've read some strange stuff there lately...worries the hell out of me it does.
  Taa.
  
  --
  A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Serious and Organized Crime? by Compaqt · 2010-11-25 20:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

What do you want to bet that serious and well-planned out crimes won't include:
Goldman Sachs UK (where to start)
Paypal UK (seizure of users' money without refund)
Microsoft UK (organized monopoly abuse)
Intel UK (organized monopoly abuse)
and anyone else who's a paymaster?

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:Serious and Organized Crime? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  "The Serious and Organised Crime Agency, created just four years ago and presented as Britain's answer to the FBI, is to be scrapped by coalition ministers, it's reported.
  A Home Office consultation to be published today will propose replacing the secretive organisation with a National Crime Agency, which would include a new specialist border policing unit and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP)"
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/soca_bye/
2. Re:Serious and Organized Crime? by jimicus · 2010-11-25 23:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's not quite as simple as that. When they're talking about Serious and Organised Crime, they don't mean "serious criminal allegations about an organisation". They mean organised criminal gangs (which are probably about Number 3 on the Official UK List of Things to be Scare the Population With, directly under terrorists and paedophiles).
  And while there's quite a few companies I would dearly love to see investigated under that kind of statute, the world tends to be rather more pragmatic than that and if an organisation by and large benefits society, IME they're generally not likely to find themselves being effectively outlawed.
3. Re:Serious and Organized Crime? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  You should have made the text in brackets the actual text of the hyperlinks.
4. Re:Serious and Organized Crime? by Ash-Fox · 2010-11-26 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  What do you want to bet that serious and well-planned out crimes won't include:
  Goldman Sachs UK (where to start)
  Paypal UK (seizure of users' money without refund)
  Microsoft UK (organized monopoly abuse)
  Intel UK (organized monopoly abuse)
  and anyone else who's a paymaster?
  I am in the UK and I don't use any of those UK sites. For paypal, when I try to use paypal.co.uk, I end up getting redirected to paypal.com when I login. When I click the microsoft link, I get redirected to microsoft.com, intel.co.uk just redirects me to intel.com.
  Yes, I don't think a 302 HTTP code is enough to get those domains 'blocked'.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
5. Re:Serious and Organized Crime? by tehcyder · 2010-11-26 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  You could add any US or UK government website to that list, after all they're guilty of war crimes, which is a bit more serious than just demanding money with menaces.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
6. Re:Serious and Organized Crime? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Unless the Police can kick down someones door and beat them or shhot them to sieze a domain, then its a waste of legislation
7. Re:Serious and Organized Crime? by DaveGod · 2010-11-26 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  What do you want to bet that serious and well-planned out crimes won't include:
  Goldman Sachs UK (where to start)
  Paypal UK (seizure of users' money without refund)
  Microsoft UK (organized monopoly abuse)
  Intel UK (organized monopoly abuse)
  and anyone else who's a paymaster?
  There are other organisations for that, such as the Competition Commission. Though organisations of that size are more likely to be referred to the EU Competition Commission, who have (very widely reported) successful antitrust cases against Microsoft and Intel in the last few years.
  SOCA on the other hand is more like the US Drug Enforcement Agency, a largely intelligence-led agency dealing with mainly criminal gangs - particularily "class A drugs, people smuggling and human trafficking, major gun crime, fraud, computer crime and money laundering", usually teaming up with other specialised agencies. For example, if you make a formal report under the anti-money laundering regulations it goes to SOCA, who make initial investigations then often pass it on to a more specific agency. Since they deal with money laundering, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were round at Goldman Sachs and especially Paypal quite often, albeit investigating customers rather than the company.
There's a problem with the summary by ZDRuX · 2010-11-25 20:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

"British Police forces could soon have the power to seize any domain associated with activity that they assume may or may not be criminal, under new proposals published today by UK domain registrar Nominet.
There, fixed for clarity and better understanding.

--
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
so, Google... by FuckingNickName · 2010-11-25 20:53 · Score: 1

...are you going to not Be Evil and continue to index b& sites which offer only an IP address? So, for example, I can type "fitwatch" in the URL bar and Google will automagically redirect me to the site I actually wanted.
If not, I look forward to increased adoption of appropriate browser extensions.
Also, Nominet suck more than Verizon. At least the latter is unashamedly about profit and obeisance; Blighty's has the cheek to pretend that acts in your best interests. And notice that the "incorrect registration information" excuse has been used to censor on police request, the standard selective enforcement through bureaucratic detail technique of any country not ruled by law.
1. Re:so, Google... by StripedCow · 2010-11-25 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  If not, I look forward to increased adoption of appropriate browser extensions.
  Nah, it's time to replace the internet by a darknet altogether.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
2. Re:so, Google... by jack2000 · 2010-11-26 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  hosts file derp
  also get your domain with a registrar which isn't run by total morons.
I guess there's no point in wikileaks by Chrisq · 2010-11-25 21:36 · Score: 1

I guess there's no point in wikileaks keeping a .uk mirror site then
We'd not be offended by fantomas · 2010-11-25 21:37 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't think many people in the UK would be offended if you asked about our past and wanted to find out more about it. Our ancestors did some good things, and bad things. Most people won't be offended because most of us are less than 100 years old so it's just history to us as well, we didn't personally take part in it or make any of the decisions.
But I think we'd all be happy for you to take an interest and read up rather than making random generalisations. Wikipedia actually has some pretty reasonable articles, start on the British Empire . Good on you for being up for learning more.
Indeed we have libel laws, they'll likely be different in England from Scotland as there as two different legal systems.
Why did we 'lose' the Empire: worth reading up - mixture of social change, political change, and economy. Some places people forced their freedom, other places it was more by agreement. Now we're pretty broke, the first and second world wars changed the world political scene: I believe it's only been in the last five years of so we finally paid back the loans we borrowed from the USA in the 1940s to pay for the second world war, we were pretty much in hock to the USA post-war so the USA could set the conditions to an awful lot of our international involvements (look up "Suez Crisis" for example).
It is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 22:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

It is a misuse of power. Plain and simple.
Bleh, so what, give it to 'em by countertrolling · 2010-11-25 22:15 · Score: 1

Let 'em shut the goddamn thing down for all I care. We had beer before there was an "internet", so who the fuck cares?

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I don't think anybody would be offended by fantomas · 2010-11-25 22:18 · Score: 1, Redundant

I don't think many people in the UK would be offended if you asked about our past and wanted to find out more about it. Our ancestors did some good things, and bad things. Most people won't be offended because most of us are less than 100 years old so it's just history to us as well, we didn't personally take part in it or make any of the decisions.
But I think we'd all be happy for you to take an interest and read up rather than making random generalisations. Wikipedia actually has some pretty reasonable articles, start on the British Empire. Good on you for being up for learning more.
Indeed we have libel laws, they'll likely be different in England from Scotland as there as two different legal systems.
Why did we 'lose' the Empire: worth reading up - mixture of social change, political change, and economy. Some places people forced their freedom, other places it was more by agreement. Now we're pretty broke, the first and second world wars changed the world political scene: I believe it's only been in the last five years of so we finally paid back the loans we borrowed from the USA in the 1940s to pay for the second world war, we were pretty much in hock to the USA post-war so the USA could set the conditions to an awful lot of our international involvements (look up "Suez Crisis" for example).
I can't wait until someone manages to pull down by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 22:22 · Score: 0

I can't wait until someone manages to pull down any government website via trickery on to unsuspecting byrocratic lemmings.
so what about this scenario... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-25 22:44 · Score: 0

I wonder how this would play out in a case I had last year. I got a spam email which I followed up - something I rarely do, but this time it was warranted due to the content on offer. In tracking down some more evidence I uncovered the perps home address, which I reported. Also, they'd hacked a LEGIT business site, and added their own folders where the activity was to operate from. Under such a scenario, if reported with the proposed laws in place, would the legit business suddenly lose their website? Or just get a friendly hello from their ISP and the Police, while the real perp got a 4am uniformed welcoming committee at his door?
Serious? by pahles · 2010-11-25 22:53 · Score: 1

But this is only when the criminals are organized AND serious? What if some disorganized criminal does something on a whim?

--
Sig?
In other news by unity100 · 2010-11-25 23:13 · Score: 1

white masked, black cape wearing man seen in back alleys of london pubs ...

--
Read radical news here
Slowly but steadily, rights go down the drain. by master_p · 2010-11-25 23:20 · Score: 1

Pretty soon, we are all going to be considered guilty until proven innocent...as predicted by most works of sci-fi....
I get mails like that as well... by jonaskoelker · 2010-11-25 23:24 · Score: 1

I'm getting 100,000,000,000,000 dollars in the mail soon.
It's funny, the mails I get also talk about a "Stimulus package"
Just the UK? by skywatcher2501 · 2010-11-25 23:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is it just the UK that is fracked up w.r.t. surveillance issues and excessive police rights, or am I just not noticing it in my own country (Italy)? And what about other countries (excluding usual suspects such as China)?

I once confronted a friend of mine from the UK with her countries' big brother issues, and she didn't show any real concerns about these issues and said that everything was fine. Perhaps she isn't noticing, because she does live in the UK?
1. Re:Just the UK? by dances+with+elks · 2010-11-26 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Most (all?) countries now seem to have big problems with corruption, terrorism hysteria and growing state power. You only hear about the US and UK most on slashdot because the site is US based so it has every US story. It has UK stories to make them feel less bad about their own issues. It seems especially bad in the UK because slashdot reports any suggestion by a police chief, MP, or tabloid news paper as incontrvertable fact when its frequently just a suggestion.
  
  --
  Will wash cars for karma
Singing... by soporific16 · 2010-11-26 00:09 · Score: 2, Informative

The po-lice state is coming
Do dah do dah
The po-lice state is coming
Oh do dah day.

Oh do dah day
It's on its merry way
The po-lice state is coming
Oh do dah day.
That's today, what about tomorrow? by Wowsers · 2010-11-26 00:18 · Score: 1

Like most people, I do not support criminals, but today it's blocking "criminal" websites, tomorrow it's opponents of the government.
We have various openDNS for IP numbers, but we don't seem to have an open Domain NAME system.

--
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Yours Sincerely, by Comboman · 2010-11-26 00:43 · Score: 1

Yours Sincerely,
Gmail.co.uk

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Nominet has reasonable grounds to believe? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-26 02:50 · Score: 0

"Nominet does not have any clear obligation in its registrant Terms and Conditions that a domain name should not be used in connection with any activity that would constitute an offence under UK criminal law,"

"This is in contrast to many registrars and a number of registries including .org and .biz"

"We believe that formal policy advice is needed to underpin proposals for a change to Nominet's Terms and Conditions to give a contractual basis to suspend domains where Nominet has reasonable grounds to believe they are being used to commit a crime (e.g. a request from an identified UK Law Enforcement Agency)" link

It isn't the function of Nominet to police the Internet. Let the police charge the registered DNS holder, anonymous or otherwise, with a crime, get a court ordered sanction and then Nominet suspends the account.