Slashdot Mirror
British Police Censor the Global Internet
judgecorp writes "A branch of the City of London police seems to be censoring suspected pirates worldwide, using threats. The Police Intellectual Proerty Crime Unit (PIPCU), acts on tip-offs from copyright owners to attempt to close down websites accused of piracy. the process involves cease-and-desist letters, followed by pressure on advertisers not to fund the site, and finally PIPCU uses threats to the domain registrar (not the ISP), all without any sort of court order."
...if the British realize that they don't own the world anymore.
Nor do they have an empire.
We do, do the USA realize they will never and do not currently (despite attempts) own the world?
Fun fact: the City of London (as opposed to Greater London and its boroughs outside the square mile) is a dictatorship with a mayor annually appointed by the businesses that operate in the City of London.
Smacks of fascism? Yes. They pride themselves as "business friendly", and never met a plutocrat they didn't like. The City of London police is basically a militia for the rich and powerful. They are also in cahoots with Scientology -- some senior officers are Scientologists, and the City of London Police have been known to do their dirty work for them, as previously reported on Slashdot.
More than anyone else is not a majority--it's a plurality. Unless the queen owns 50% of the world plus one iota, then it's not a majority.
You're the only with no facts. The City of London is not the same as London. The Mayor of the City of London is not the Mayor of London.
all without any sort of court order."
Have you recently read of anything done by anyone WITH a court order? I wonder if the courts still remember how to write one.
The template must have been used for the last time with WordPerfect 4.2.
Civil rights have been under attack in Britain for a long time. Since Thatcher, continued enthusiastically by Blair/Brown and now Cameron's government we have seen a massive assault on traditional freedoms and protections. Judicial oversight, Freedom of speech, free assembly/protest, presumption of innocence, freedom from mass surveillance have all come under massive attack by various bills over the last 20 years. This is has been met with hardly a reaction from the general public, most people don't seem to think it affects them and this has emboldened governments and institutions to act in a more and more authoritarian manner, working under the strong belief that they are doing what the public want for their own good. I fear by the time people start to react, we will be so far down the road; it will take something close to a revolution to change. We are not big on revolutions on Britain.
Can you explain why this paleolithic institution is allowed to survive? Are the British people daft?
This is just "how it works" in real life and is the equivalent of them "asking nicely", common approach is to ignore them politely whilst furiously covering ones arse via some means. However things tend to progress quite quickly after that, one of two things tends to happen: ...or they catch you and give your kidneys a little tickle with a truncheon.
...or they pop around your house and confiscate all your kit which you might get back some day in the far flung future, probably without the drives.
1) You have a faster means of transport than they do and a better working knowledge of the local area facilitating a clean get away.
1) a) They pop round your "known associates" and ask them deep and meaningful questions about your whereabouts lately.
2)
So this seems roughly to be a fairly direct translation to the on-line world. I'd expect the equivalent here to be that either...
1) You make sure you have a diverse infrastructure outside their jurisdiction and a better working knowledge of how the internet works.
1) a) They pressure your advertisers.
2)
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/11/07/feature_what_happens_when_you_arrested_by_computer_police/ for a detailed explanation of what to expect from number 2.
Do these people not realize they have zero jurisdiction outside of their own country?
If a police department in a foreign country is trying to exert pressure on you, the response is to tell them to go fuck themselves and come back when they have legal standing.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Ha ha. The irony!
benjfolwer is correct and you Mr high and mightly asshole, with all your fact finding, are WRONG!
The Mayory of the City of London is elected by the 'Livery Companies' not the people. Wrong Mayor of London.
City of London police is like a private security firm working for a postage-stamp size borough of London. They tiny ( and they leave horse shit all over the place ).
the City of London is a square mile business district, the Lord Mayor is the head of the City of London Corporation, and is Fiona Woolf at the moment. Boris is the Mayor of London - that is Greater London, and what Americans think of as London, not the City of London Corporation. It is actually the Livery Companies (like the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists) that elect the Lord Mayor. It is weirder than you think.
IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.
Citation
The correct response by all companies to a request "without any sort of court order." should be to send t directly to /dev/null - I don't care if it is the NSA, FBI, or the London Police issuing the request, unless it is accompanied by a court order, why are companies bending over backwards to help the government - the government sure is not bending over backwards to help them.
(Yes I realize the problem is larger than this with FISA warrants and secret courts, but I don't think the London Police Department can serve a FISA warrant... yet anyway.)
he said majority share, not majority.
I don't care if brought in the entire GDP, it's an outdated, immoral construct that has no place in modern society. We should be ashamed to have a monarchy.
Is now gone? no killings no robberies, All real crime has been taken care of so they have to move to IP enforcement?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Most of us would rather have the Queen as head of state than any recent prime minister.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
no it fucking does not, the historic building's generate that not the bloody royal welfare scroungers.
They should have "all" there wealth stripped and put back unto UK gov (our stupid fuckers have just given them a fucking £230 mil rise from fucking useless windmills (draining more money from us via power bills))
By owning the intellectual property one gains rights but also duties to protect the intellectual property. It is in fact the burden on shoulders of IP holders that is specified by law. :-) This is a very nice example of businesses delegating their duties to people (I mean tax-funded police). Definitely smart way to lower the costs of intellectual property ownership and thus increasing the profit margin.
I am sure that ordinary British will not like it. I am interested to see what will they do about it (to know when our Police will get the same idea ;).
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
If you want it all summarised (very) nicely, checkout these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c
Exactly this. Mrs Queen is not a member of any political party. We don't know what the rules for a president would be, but it's pretty certain they'd build the same old party political self-interest into them.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Unless the royals generated enough tax revenue to cover their costs they are still a cost to us UK taxpayers.
The £400M (or whatever) comes out of all of our pockets - the £500M goes into those of the tourist industry (with a percentage coming back as tax).
If the situation were truly fair, the net beneficiaries should pay* for the royals and the rest of us just contribute a SMALL overhead like we do for generic 'heritage' etc.
*obvious pun "paying royalies"
Actually, no. The CoLP are very heavily influenced by corporate pressures, but not those ones. They work for a number of British corporations, most of them financial.
So this action is at the behest of the British record and film companies. There is some overlap, with a lot of them being multinational.
IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.
Citation
The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.
Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would bring in much more money if the Queen would fuck off. They could be permanently opened as museums.
http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php
Are you an idiot?
The PM has to meet with the Queen every week.
Then you have the Queen's speech to Lords telling us what shit's been made law, plus she can remove the government at any time.
The Queen IS our Head of State.
And actually, most of us would prefer to have a true democracy based upon informed choices of an educated electorate rather than an increasingly Americanised two-party sideshow providing a veneer of credibility to an outdated and self serving establishment... if we're to be marked as insighful for completely baseless, self opined, assertions.
Majority share is still >50%.
bollocks, next you'll be suggesting the USA gets tourism from the Kardashians
Boris Johnson, Mayor of the Greater London Authority is in charge of the Metropolitan Police. He is elected by the people who live in the Greater London Area, a region of England with a population of around 8 million people comprising two cities, London and Westminster, and 31 boroughs such as Camden, Southwark, Croydon and so on.
Fiona Woolf is Lord Mayor of the City of London. The smallest city in England with a population of around 10,000 people. She is in charge of the City of London Police, and is elected by the businesses that are based in the City of London.
Can you explain why this paleolithic institution is allowed to survive? Are the British people daft?
For the same reason /. keeps recycling old news. This tempest in a teapot has already been beaten to death here, months ago I think. At least the original date of the blog from easyDNS is dated back in September.
The summary is: the City of London police cover a small area in London, dealing often with IP and financial issues. They asked a DNS provider to look over their AUP concerning a certain website to see if action was appropriate. They asked the DNS provider, if they thought an AUP issue merited action, to please do certain things that would protect the ability to bring the matter to justice in a court (freeze DNS records to prove ownership, etc.) They left the decision up to the DNS provider. They then dared to ask the DNS provider to respond either way.
This is, of course, on /., an attempt at censoring the global internet. Just as I've attempted to censor the global internet by reporting spam factories to their DNS hosts/ISP to deal with.
Must be a slow news day.
Court orders are so 21st century.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
The first one was, imo, a sarcastic jab at the people that make the exact same blanket statements regarding the USA.
It certainly was NOT without reason.
Anonymous Coward, are you new to Slashdot ?
The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.
Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would bring in much more money if the Queen would fuck off. They could be permanently opened as museums.
http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php
Well the Tower of London houses the crown jewels, which is linked to the monarchy; and Buckingham Palace would just be another stately home without the queen living there. The fact it is her home drives the demand.
I've lived in the UK for a few years. I also looked up some of the legal issues regarding the monarchy, and watched it in action. The way it currently stands, they have very little actual power beyond that of any other obscenely rich person. On the other hand, they have a lot of influence. So they may not be able to wield the law like a scythe, but there words can and do make things happen. Then again, I've seen the queen try to quell stupidity in the houses, and though they quietly listened, it didn't do a damn bit of good.
The British monarchy is a figurehead.
In the UK, the Royal Family keeps at least three different newspapers alive and is responsible for at least 60% of the content in most popular magazines.
It's not easy being the stars and writers of the world's most popular soap opera.
Trying to compare the Kardashians to the British Royal Family is like trying to compare dog poop to ambergris.
No, the UK has a president, they just call him a Prime Minister, but it's still the equivalent job.
To pull out a colloquialism, Horse of a different colour and all that.
In the Netherlands our royal family are business people who make deals for our large corporations and open up trade negotiations with other countries. Our royal family works for their living and earn the Netherlands a lot of money.
In the United Kingdom our Royal Family include a racist old man and a homoeopathic nutter. Their main economic output is selling trashy newspapers.
I'd prefer to choose trade ambassadors, it's much easier to get rid of them if they turn out to be corrupt. Is your Royal Family also exempted from any efforts to improve political transparency? (e.g. for here, Freedom of Information requests.)
Actually she does, but only rarely. On those rare occasions, everyone shuts up and listens to her, then when she's said her piece, they usually go right back to whatever stupidity prompted her to speak in the first place.
Why shouldn't anyone be ashamed that the best-paid public sector worker in the UK is employed on grounds of accident of birth to do nothing more than rubber stamp government decisions and shake people's hands?
Seriously, what ever happened to earning your place in society? I would happily do the Queen's job for 20 grand a year, as long as there was a sufficient training allowance for me to actually learn the languages spoken by the foreign dignitaries I was meeting, rather than expecting them to use English.
I'd be cheaper, and I'd be better at the job.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Actually, the homoeopathic nutter also generates wealth through the sale of chutney and biscuits. Granted, that's through the Duchy of Cornwall, which is land essentially stolen from the public through the outdated and unfair law that says if you die in Cornwall without a will, ol' big ears gets everything....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Yes, but the Crown Jewels would still exist as a relic if the monarchy was disbanded.
In fact, the Crown Jewels are one of the monarchies biggest costs historically. They are owned by the realm, not the Crown Estates, and every monarch or two the realm (ie taxpayer) has had to pay to have them replaced, cos the previous king or queen has decided to flog them off to pay a gambling, drink or drug habit. This is technically theft, but no-one's ever prosecuted the royal household for their incredibly huge criminal acts. (To be fair, it would be difficult as it's never been found out until it's time to crown the successor, so the guy who did it was usually dead by then.)
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.
Citation
From the citation:
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
So if there were no Queen but some actors dressed up like Henry the 8th, people would stop coming to see the castles? I don't buy that. They come to see the historical sites, not to have tea with the Queen.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It's /. you illiterate and cowardly moronic cipher, not ./
Thanks for correcting me dude - i see my original comment is rated -1 now... i think it was because i offended the usual ./ crowd by misspelling "slashdot"!
1) You just repeated exactly the same error.
2) Tip: if you don't post anonymously, I think you will find the civility of the responses will rise. I definitely have two modes. One for real people, and one for anonymous posters, who it is by definition impossible to insult. I am dead serious.
3) As for substance, with respect I believe it is undeservedly respectful to an overweening authority and begs the real question.
Anonymous Coward, are you new to Slashdot ?
Nah. He's been saying stupid things since slashdot first opened its doors for business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_revolution
js
You're right. No one in the US ever pays to tour homes of famous people.
Honestly, living in the US, I'd be content with just the occasional break from the partisan lunacy, even if only the moment of silence.
Sorry, I just remembered something I forgot to mention.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/09/prince-charles-letters-mps-private-court
>Judges reject Guardian attempt to force publication of 'black spider memos' that would reveal efforts to influence government
>influence government
Plutocracy, anybody?
I didn't realize that there were even that many people. It's almost literally a ghost town on weekends.
Touché
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Seems like DeVry have started a course on international politics & civics, and it looks like the first cohort just graduated.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My hats are way cooler.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
i think it was because i offended the usual ./ crowd by misspelling "slashdot"!
Oi, back to dotslash.org with you, you naughty troll you!
Having the Queen as my head of state seems to be better than what people in the USA put up with.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
That's not a pun, it's the origin of the word.
Well, if you'd have listened to any of his critics back then, done any research, read his readings, seen his "voting record", etc...you'd have known you were getting exactly what you were voting for.
One problem was..so many people were enamored with getting the first black president voted in, they (media included) completely ignored much of Obama's teachings, writings and background. But even if you go back today, research a bit, you'll see he wasn't really pretentious.....you got what you voted for.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Exactly what is the property you think was stolen?
What was the due legal process used?
Why IS it /. Inztead of ./
I never recall the US using tactical nukes as part of the operation
if [only] the Queen would fuck off.
We are not aroused.
... aroused .... get it? Oh, never mind; if you have to explain a joke....
Amused
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Intellectual "property" is not property and it cannot be stolen. Theft involves a tangible item (which this is not). The damage is that the owner is deprived of the use of said tangible item. This owner is not deprived of the use of any tangible item. Copyright is not a human right. It is a legal grant. There may be a copyright violation or they may not; it has certainly not been duly proven; but there IS NO THEFT here.
Somebody has been deprived of his website though. Due legal process would require proof that some wrong has been committed, jurisdiction, prosecution, determination of an appropriate punishment, and recourse to appeal so that (ideally and hopefully) the defendant can reach some venue which has not been corrupted.
What you see here is a gross overreach by so-called authorities acting criminally. I don't know about Greece, but concerned citizens of countries in general tend to frown on that sort of thing.
God no. As you said she is yours. A proud member of the Commonwealth.
When you have companies above them?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I point you to CGP Grey's summary of the financial costs and benefits of the royal family... The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Actually, back in the old moldy days, the royal family was expected to personally survive on the proceeds of the "crown estates," that is the land and other assets directly owned by the family. At some point a few hundred years ago, one of the monarchs was broke, so he cut a deal with parliament: He would turn over all of the revenues from the crown estates (but not the titles themselves), and in exchange parliament would fork over a living and maintenance stipend. As I understand it, the revenue the British government raises today from the crown estates exceeds the cost keeping the royals in their fancy palaces, not counting all of the economic impact from tourism.
That is, the government is making money off of the royals, and cutting the stipend would either require them to give up the crown estate revenue (a net loss to the government), or it would involve seizing the estates of the royals and reneging on this agreement.
IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.
Citation
The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.
Oh, they only "own" the tower of London.
So clearly they have nothing to do with it what so ever. Glad you cleared that one up.
I guess I wont drive my car any more now I've found out I only "own" it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
He is also a massive tax dodger.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yeah, but at the moment you can't pick either the PM or the head of state. One is picked by the ruling party and the other is hereditary. We don't have an elected second house either, so there is no effective way for us to balance our government.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You are missing two important points.
Firstly the police deal with criminals, not civil matters. There is no alleged or prosecuted crime here. They are basically providing legal services and hoping their victims are scared of the police.
Secondly we are not the World Police. There is plenty of stuff on the internet that is illegal here but legal where it is hosted. Too bad for us.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I already travel twice a week, the Queen travels more than me and does a lot of public speaking while being burdened with not embarrassing the country if she personally makes a mistake. I wouldn't be as willing to take her place.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Yet they receive tax money.
It equates to something like a pound or two per taxpayer per year. Given how much they (indirectly) bring in via tourism, I'd say it's a bargain. Plus we get the day off work when one of them gets married :)
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Not quite.
A President is directly elected to that position, whereas the Prime Minister is not. What actually happens is the leader of the majority party (or the leader of the largest party in a coalition) is invited by the reigning monarch to form a government (a formality, but we Brits love our little formalities). Said leader then becomes First Lord of the Treasury a.k.a. Prime Minister.
Obviously the party leader is elected in his/her constituency, but only members of the party can vote for their party leader.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
"A president is voted on, not born into, his/her position." Please tell that to George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton.
Unlike any Member of Parliment or councilor...
Why IS it /. Inztead of ./
It's a play on the pronunciation of the URL. Aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slashdot dot org
How's that? Aren't prime ministers elected?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”