Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Plans To Censor "Extremist" Websites Via Orders To ISPs
Not content with blacklisting certain kinds of pornography, writes an anonymous reader, according to this news from The Guardian, "The UK government is to order broadband companies to block extremist websites and empower a specialist unit to identify and report content deemed too dangerous for online publication. The crime and security minister, James Brokenshire, said on Wednesday that measures for censoring extremist content would be announced shortly. The initiative is likely to be controversial, with broadband companies already warning that freedom of speech could be compromised."
n/t
When Terrorism is 'Any action that is intended to influence the government', what is extremism? Any idea that the current sitting government doesn't like?
There was once another group of people that went out of their way to censor information their people received, to hide atrocities committed in their name and smash an idea that didn't fit the party line.
As I recall, at one stage, the UK did quite a bit to stop them.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
Theres a lot of them in the States, but I don't suppose they count.
On both ends of the political spectrum
Already recommended Slashdot to them. They said there wasn't enough CP or threats of violence on here yet, but they'll be working hard to fix that problem.
Its almost like they WANT an uprising on their hands...
..if this kind of shit continues.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Historically, far and away the most dangerous information a web site can host is the idea it's good, necessary, and proper for a government to have the power to censor.
That's just based on a silly metric called megadeaths, though.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"The government is to order broadband companies to block extremist websites and empower a specialist unit to identify and report content deemed too dangerous for online publication."
That would be anything that either embarrasses the government or any of the F500 corporations or otherwise interferes with them
shitting all over you and your family and stomping you flat if you object.
Maybe they should block the government's web site.
Extremism is anything which the government doesn't like.
You saw the Prime Minister steal a candy bar? Don't tell anyone about it, extremist.
The Internet has truly become the Volksempfanger - a method of distributing government propaganda while limiting "pirate" content.
Compare and contrast the comments herein with the comments of this other thread. Note the framing words used in each headline -- One says "Extremist" the other one "Radical". This allows us to compare the interchangeable terms in big O notation: Whereby O( 1 ) is clear and unbiased news, and higher big Orwellian factors indicate additional obfuscation and framing complexity to add connotative bias where none is required.
and EVERYBODY knows what will be the next steps. Go on, the frog is still comfortable in the warm water.
Sites that disagree with the government line? But facebook beheadings are presumably not extremist enough..
"The initiative is likely to be controversial, with broadband companies already warning that freedom of speech could be compromised."
freedom of speech is a total fiction anyway...there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Always the trend setters they are, except when it comes to rock 'n roll...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We all knew it was only the beginning when they started with the censorship.
Who the fuck writes a text spamming bot in 2013 and then has a fixed size text buffer???
... whatever
I guess the British government morons who thought this idiocy up ...
have never heard of servers which are located in areas
which do not fall under their jurisdiction
One man's extremism is another man's passion for truth and the rights of the people.
Great, UK, one of great U.S. allies is following the Australia and Chinese models of censoring what the government doesn't like. We should send the IRS and Obama handles, err, Democratic operatives, over there to teach them how to violate the citizens freedom of speech rights in a more subtle manner.
We live in a "twitter" world. If you can't spam it in a limited number of characters you're just not with the times.
"The more you tighten your grip... the more bits will simply slip through your fingers."
Seriously though, censorship? "1984" was a warning, NOT A BLOODY GUIDEBOOK!
The UK Gov't has its head up its ass.
I remember that there was great controversy about the Taliban, then in control of the country of Afghanistan. I would go to www.taliban.com and read what they had to say. It was in English. Then in July it was hacked and the front page was replaced by a picture of the American flag. A month or so later the United States invaded Afghanistan. A month after that www.taliban.com disappeared from the Internet.
The United States of America does not have to block web sites. If they don't like you, you just cease to exist. They control the top level domain names, right?
Oddly enough, I see that there is a site there now. I'll have to check it out.
It is true that exposure to truth tends to radicalize people. I say again that no government wants the population to have freedom in communications. People who think a lot can be difficult to control. Secrecy is a form of conspiracy in and of itself. Hiding truth tends to maintain social customs. And people can be manipulated simply by hiding the truth. Right now we have a lot of issues with terrorists from the Arab nations. Apparently they have some dream of bring back the caliphate. But how many of these Arabs are even aware that the caliphate was Ottoman and that Arabs were not particularly respected nor valued by the Turks who controlled the caliphate. For an Arab to dream of the joy of living under the caliphate is roughly equivalent to a German Jew dreaming of the good old days when the Reich was in total control of Germany.
A comparison in six words:
"It's OK when we do it."
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
So will they have to censor their own websites?
Or do we raise our right hand und sieg heil?
The Internet began as a freedom of speech thing the same way me standing in a park did. But that was in the '80s. Now, the Internet acts as a full publication and broadcast system, like me putting up a six-storey banner on the side of a skyscraper.
There have always been laws governing what you can say in a public arena.
Today, it's the norm for 3-year olds to use online systems, as well as educational institutions, and a whole host of real-world legitimate and vital purposes. It's no longer an optional activity at all in most circles.
So the question to ask yourself: is there anything that you wouldn't accept painted onto the side of a downtown building? You can always walk a different way to work and not see it. I'll bet there's something that you would call inappropriate as a public display. It may be something as simple as your grandparents kissing.
Whatever it is, that's what we've come to. And it's no surprise. For all the reasons that broadcasts have ever been appropriately restricted, so should the internet be.
Now, you can certainly complain with the way that it's done. You can be upset at the sheer number of false positives. You can be correct in saying that it may actually be impossible or unfeasible to enforce. But then that becomes the debate, not the need for the restriction in the first place.
So many have battled external enemies for our freedom. Fought and died for freedom. Yet, despite the fact that the majority of people agree that the average polititian is pretty much pond scum, we still allow them to take our freedom without even a whimper. What all outside fources have failed to do we do to ourselves. God help us all...
This is a slippery slope, and I've been assured here on many occasions that slippery slopes are a logical fallacy.
I can imagine why you feel more threatened about this than most. I'm not from the UK, but I did notice a link between extremist ideas on the internet and terrorism. The Boston bombers for instance, were totally into tin-foil hat theories and "right wing" ideology. My immediate reaction to that realization was just this: extremist ideas should be dealt with with extreme prejudice.
And then I stepped back and looked at what that would mean.
Freedom is hard. It's about taking a risk. The risk is that in exchange for not putting everyone in a cage, the 1/2 of 1% of the population might murder you. Perfect safety, or at least, perfect safety from spectacular attacks, is going to require that we all be put into electronic cages. You will have freedom of movement, but be on camera and recorded at all times. Your location, heart-rate, voice, and someday even thoughts, will have to be monitored by the government, much like a game designer testing his virtual world for bugs.
Its required to fight terrorism. Fighting terrorism is a good way to get elected. Most people won't mind so long as they can play XBox, drive a car, "follow their dreams", and so on. "Leave the politics to the politicians, I just want to make a living." They'll say.
80 years from now our "1st world" won't even be recognizable.
Go to Report online terrorist and extremist material and do your civic duty to report extremists websites that UK citizens should be protected from!
I myself have reported the site, http://www.jamesbrokenshire.com/ as example of a radical extremist who wants prevent British citizens from being exposed to alternative opinions and information and making up their own minds as to their validity which runs counter to government sanctioned media outlets. I encourage other people to utilize this website pronto and start identifying those freedom hating websites out there. And if you are worried about the UK government getting all in your business by reporting an extremist website? Well, don't be because the site has this disclaimer on it:
Report illegal terrorist or violent extremist information, pictures or videos on the internet. Your report will be treated anonymously.
You may not recall, but there have been repeated promises that the UK censorship would never be used, cross our black little politicians' hearts honest, for anything except the most grave and depraved child abuse pictures.
That already went out the window with the general ban on porn and the resulting requirement to phone in and admit you're a pervert, to (in the law's honest-like-spammers-are-honest terminology) "opt out" of filtering. If anyone still believed it would stay limited and the ban on wikipedia was "just" an accident.
So this is no surprise. It's entirely logical. And yet another proof that promises from politicians are exactly that: Devoid of value, consistency, sense, or any purpose beyond "votes", no matter the cost to the country or its citizens.
In 1985 Margaret Thatcher gave a speech to the American Bar Association in which she said "we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend". This led to a ban on broadcast of utterances by republican politicians supportive of the Provisional IRA, which in turn led to the absurd situation of news programmes showing video of politicians such as Gerry Adams speaking but with the audio replaced by an actor's voice.
It only drew attention to the extremist's cause, as will be the case here.
pi = 2*|arg(God)|
...the name of the Minister, Mr. Brokenshire.
:-)
Since "shire" is a county in the UK (i.e., a political subdivision) that translates directly to Mr. "Broken" "Government."
Couldn't have named him much better, myself
Anyone who opposes the actions of the government.
please name names, without a reference, nobody can search for Australian and Chinese models.... i heard Obama`s starting a new swimsuit edition, "Bad-Sports, Illustrated by their constitutionalviolations
Whether or not this becomes a freedom of speech issue depends upon many factors, one of which is the definition of free speech. Personally I draw the line at encouraging people to commit material crimes (e.g. murder) and at intentionally fabricating false information with the intent to harm others (e.g. accusing a person of rape when they did not commit that crime). Yet even if we all agreed upon that definition, there is the question of exactly what constitutes extremism and how that translates into law enforcement in practice.
For example: I am perfectly fine with a bunch of people with extreme views discussing how terrible the government is and how it should be changed, and I am fine with them spreading their message. It doesn't matter whether I agree with them or disagree with them. I am even fine with them discussing legal means of changing the government in order to reflect their perspective, even though I would be sure to oppose such changes if their views are actually that extreme. Yet I do have an issue with the promotion of violence and inciting terror in order to impose their views upon others. There are ample reasons for that, ranging from the intimidation tactics that people use in their everyday life to impose their will upon others to more extreme political movements that have resorted in anything from wholesale oppression to genocide.
Very interesting comment, Anon.
I didn't know shit was so bad up there...
Sorry if this sounds a little mean, but the populace have done fuck all to stop censorship, the erosion of freedom of thought, speech, expression.
They just continually bend over and let the government do whatever they want.
Fuck 'em!
There was a story at The Guardian some months ago about internal government documents that had labeled mainstream environmentalists as extremists.
Why not let them conduct this "experiment"?
The results will be useful as a negative example.
And just make sure the people responsible are not forgotten.
Some ministry of the UK government tried contacting us in regard to content filtering. But we had already blacklisted them as a member of an extremist totalitarian regime. So their communication was blocked.
Have gnu, will travel.
Good on them for having some cojones.
And who knows, maybe the crazy nut job Arabs will find their way home for their freedom. Well, maybe if they like to live in mob-ruled chaos vs. a civilized country. l Why try to live in 21st century Britain when they could be with their brothers in 7th century paradise?
In my view, spying on innocent citizens, sharing information with foreign nations and dictating what supposedly free people can read is extremism.
I, for one, would like to hear more about these grooved pebbles.
I am not free to marry a little girl. The old testament is fine with me doing that, your modern religion/government is not. I am not more free.
So, Energy from Thorium (promoted, in part, by an international group, which just concluded its 2013 Conference, at CERN, in Geneva) could be deemed as a -commercially- extreme concept, eg, since - if/when Thorium-/LFTR-based nuclear power (cf the recently released eBook "Nuclear 2.0") begins to replace fossil-fueled & even Uranium-based powe plants - a number of well-endowed commercial interests may feel unduly threatened by EfT.
Could the info & organisations who would like to bring EfT -sooner- into pur energy markets be deemed "extremists" & see their web sites, etc. get blocked 8n the UK, etc.?
I'm astounded this got modded up. We ALREADY have enslavement. We will need one or more miracles to get ourselves out of the present rush toward disaster.
This could have been said truthfully most years in the last 250 or so. Certainly, it would have been true if said in 1865....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Russia and China welcome a new ally in a wight for greater good.
Love the ride down that slope.. ( it accelerates towards the end, so bring seat belts )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Censorship is a policy of extremists, so lets get those Totalitarian Tory pages down.
"This from the country that banned Michael Savage"
I don't understand this. You realise most countries deny entry every single day for various reasons including the US for the reason we banned Michael Savage?
The only reason it was news when the UK did it is precisely because it was a big deal and precisely because the UK has historically had one of the most liberal border crossings in the world.
Even supposedly liberal Canada I was very nearly refused entry into once simply because the customs officer did not believe I was not there to work for the simple fact I took a laptop with me when I really was just there for a holiday. Apparently he couldn't comprehend why someone would take a laptop on holiday. It was only when I asked for British consular advice that they said okay and stopped harassing me and let me get on with my holiday.
There is no inherent right to cross a nation's borders, and people get refused every single day for far less than hate speech. Just because the UK has started doing it too in a very small fringe amount of cases doesn't make it exceptional, though it did make it newsworthy precisely because we did used to let the likes of Abu Hamza et. al. in - in this respect we've always been much more tolerant of controversial speakers than even the US.
lel, if this is really the literally insane TempleOS guy his markov chain / posting bot is probably written in pure x64 assembly. Given that I'd cut him some slack about minor bugs like this.
Michael Savage is a talk show host. Lumping him in with terrorist is ridiculous and only served the liberal wing who doesn't want to hear opposing views. So tell my why a Conservative speaker should be banned for any reason other than liberal censorship. That was when you crossed a line that you can't go back from. Israel is pretty much the best ally the U.S. has at this point although Obama and the Democrats have instituted more Socialism now than Canada and the U.K..
They're not lumping him in with terrorists any more than Canada was lumping me in with terrorists because one customs officer couldn't believe I'd take a laptop on a private holiday.
"and only served the liberal wing who doesn't want to hear opposing views"
By definition, if they don't want to hear opposing views, then they're not liberal.
"liberal censorship."
Again, I don't think you know what liberalism is. "Liberal censorship"- I'll try and help you understand why that statement is stupid. It's a bit like saying "male women", or talking about the colour "black white". These things are diametrically opposed. The worst part of your whole argument is that your conservative speaker was banned by a home secretary with conservative views and the ban later upheld by the Conservative party. Where are these mystical liberals you talk of that were involved? Calling Jacqui Smith liberal is pretty comical given that she was the one who tried to push through some of the most illiberal laws the UK has seen in decades.
"That was when you crossed a line that you can't go back from."
A line that pretty much every other nation on earth already crossed years before us including the US? Oh no, we're damned!
"Israel is pretty much the best ally the U.S. has at this point"
Erm, you know Israel has denied entry to far more people for their political views than Britain ever has right? I mean, we're talking about Israel here, the country that built a wall to hold an entire fucking race of people from entering just for being that race. So what you're saying is it's okay for Israel to do that sort of thing - it makes them awesome, but if Britain does it once or twice with a handful of specific individuals it's a problem? Please explain how you justify your hypocrisy, I'm intrigued to know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to perform in your head for this to make any kind of sense.
"although Obama and the Democrats have instituted more Socialism now than Canada and the U.K.."
It doesn't look like you understand what socialism is either.
Tell me, why do you use terms you don't understand? You know it makes you look really really stupid right?
Wow, love the insults. Nice job. I can always tell a liberal then the insults have more substance than the content or when their lips are moving, you take your pick. Unfortunately, your definition of liberal no longer applies to the real world but please keep holding on to that. Liberals are about free speech, unless it disagrees with them. And your definition of Conservative in Great Britain died with Maggie Thatcher. Unfortunately, she was the last one with any gonads who have led your country. Your view on Israel is simply a denial of the maniacal radical fundamentalist terrorists that exist only to kill the Jewish race. Israel has every right to contain this disease and exterminate as necessary. Since Iran is funding these psychos, Israel has every right to do whatever they need to since nobody else will, including President Idiot Obama. What part of my explanation are you not going to twist with lies. I know exactly what a Socialist is and the failures of every single one of them. If you think insulting me makes you look better, I really don't care. You clearly have no moral or ethical foundation to stand on based on your positions. I know the Democratic party in the United States would gladly accept you if you decide to come here.
Really nice of the government to issue a required reading list for rebels!
Thank you for answering my question about what mental gymnastics you need to perform to come up with the hypocritical nonsense you do - long story short it sounds like you just pretend reality isn't and referring terms incorrectly to sit you nonsense world view?
You're everything that makes America bad, you're the reason America is in decline. Congratulations on your failure to be a net benefit to the world, you must be proud.
There are a few seriously dangerous websites out there, such as those that show the USA and UK both made and tested nuclear bombs made from waste nuclear generator material. Just perhaps some of this information shouldn't be so widely available. The fact that it is, sheds light on the USA wanting very close monitoring of Iran's nuclear program. But more importantly, once 'extremist' censorship is in place, Government 'National Security' agenda can and often does include things that governments don't want revealed either because they are embarrassing or not what the Government wants publicly revealed. The UK Government is trying without success to censor some of Snowden's revelations but if such a law was in place, I doubt if any of Snowden's revelations would ever have seen the light of day in the USA and UK. .
What tends to happen though is that once the machinery is in place legislatively, websites get censored without the government revealing who they censor, which is an extremely worrying trend. The UK censors about 30 P2P sites as facilitating preventing piracy of copyright material, but for example, many unsigned bands depend on these sites to get their music heard. Also, the Government doesn't themselves reveal sites blocked. we have only found this out from ISPs. I imagine in the USA they would also prevent ISPs from revealing blocked sites.