UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

An anonymous reader writes "The UK minister for immigration and security, James Brokenshire has called for the government to do more to deal with 'unsavoury', rather than illegal, material online. 'Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas,' Brokenshire told Wired.co.uk in a statement."

Comments

Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, most of Britain wants the UK Government to be removed and replaced by people who are not asshats. Unfortunately, it turns out that nobody who is not an asshat can be persuaded to want the job.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. The .uk used to be cool. What happened?

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this when the queen steps in and takes over?

Re:Fascists

[RDW]

Her corgis could probably do a better job than the last few governments.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said.

Oh so he thinks he is going to stop me calling a coon a coon or a paki a paki he is in for one mother of a shock Oh yea is he just ..

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume we want/support our monarchy. It's a leech on society, nothing more.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said.

Oh so he thinks he is going to stop me calling a coon a coon or a paki a paki he is in for one mother of a shock Oh yea is he just ..

Ok, just go up to someone in Brixton and call them a coon then,
try the same thing with Paki in Newham..if you survive that couple of exercises, then plonk the same epithets on a uk based website where your ID is readily discernable/discoverable.

Do let us know how you get on...

Re:Fascists

[K. S. Kyosuke]

...only until they noticed the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office trying to make itself scarce. ;-)

Re:Fascists

[amorsen]

I have no idea what Her Majesty's policies would be, but while her reign has managed to outlive that of Fidel Castro, it must eventually end. Next in line is Prince Charles, and that would be an absolute disaster.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Superiority complex. Don't worry, you'll get it too.

Re:Fascists

[chilvence]

Spineless cunt, if you're going to be a cunt, be a cunt with your own name.At least be a principled cunt. Cunt.

Re:Fascists

[lgw]

I don't follow the royals, but wasn't there a prince who spent a long time in the military, and simply chose not to take the figurehead post at the top but rather worked his way up as a junior officer? Sounds like his head at least is in the right place. Someone who both values working for a living and has shown real loyalty to the UK would seem ideal here. And I'd think the royals have enough money to be a strong influence on politics regardless of their official powers.

Re:Fascists

[cyber-vandal]

Why? It's not like he has any power.

Re:Fascists

[amorsen]

The GP proposal was for the Queen to take over, implying that he would get power eventually.

Re:Fascists

[amiga3D]

I think it's a bad thing to repress free speech. Without hearing your ignorant invective firsthand we couldn't appreciate how fucked up you truly are.

Re:Fascists

[causality]

In other news, most of Britain wants the UK Government to be removed and replaced by people who are not asshats. Unfortunately, it turns out that nobody who is not an asshat can be persuaded to want the job.

In yet other news ... here's an idea! If you are concerned about propaganda causing your citizens to become "radicalized", why not take the most effective steps possible to prevent that? Create the most sane, free, reasonably run society in which civil rights are sacrosanct, all of the laws are sensible, and all of the laws are equally enforced.

You'll find that far fewer of the citizens would ever want to do anything to oppose that. It's more effective than playing whack-a-mole with an ever-growing list of terrorists.

Re:Fascists

[jedidiah]

> Why do you think 'Fascism' is bad?

The book burning is an obvious bad sign.

Re:Fascists

[koan]

I'll take your Ezekiel and raise you a Ecclesiastes 10:19.

Re:Fascists

[umafuckit]

Hopefully not quite yet, but this is one reason why we need a constitutional monarchy. It constitues a potential concentration of power that's outside the government and may help provide balance in the event of the country's democracy being undermined by elected officials. The way any country is governed is never static, but changes over time. Even in the recent past the UK saw a change, as Blair's government concentrated power in the cabinet to a greater degree than did previous governments. For these reasons I see the monarchy as having a useful latent power that is worth preserving. They're also pretty good value for money as the so-called sovereign grant that is paid to them comes from the Crown estate, that is independently managed. Plus, the tourists love them.

Re:Fascists

[rtb61]

Book burning, hmm, it actually comes in two categories. The first one is evil when you burn other peoples books or publicly owned books. The second one is humorous, when you burn books you have bought. When you burn books you have bought, obviously the purchase of that book drives sales and hence more will be printed, also the book you have bought by burning is removed from the second hand market. So burning a religious book you have purchased makes absolutely no difference other than making a categorical statement that it is truly evil to try to kill someone for burning a book that they owned.

As for an extremely right wing UK government wanting to erase unsavory web sites, we all know what that means, first on the list wikileaks, next peace sites, unions sites, any anti-government sites and the list goes on and on and on.

Re:Fascists

[dryeo]

Not sure who you're talking about, possibly Lord Mountbatten who did work his way up from midshipman to the head of the armed forces though he was never that close to being in line to the UK throne (he was the son of a German Prince and Great Grandson of Queen Victoria IIRC). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Most of the Royals start at the bottom (as officers though) in the armed forces and are expected to perform much as anyone else, eg Prince William who will probably be King one day, served in combat in Afghanistan as a helicopter pilot and afterwards in search and rescue. His combat phase was shorter then he and his family really wanted but being heir to the throne means having a big target painted on you.
I like the idea of royalty actually serving in the forces and getting first hand experience in the horrors of war.
As for the influence of the Queen on politics, she has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister and sort of serves as a senior non-partison adviser to the government.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

But, you can't have any pudding if you don't beat your populace into submission, and by pudding, I do mean increasing wealth for the upper 1%, while everyone else rots.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Can call anyone anything, it's called freedom of expression.

Nobody has the *right* not to be offended. Sorry, but you don't, he doesn't, she doesn't and the hermaphroditic alien from pluto, two seats to your left sure as hell doesn't.

Re:Fascists

[drinkypoo]

Spineless cunt, if you're going to be a cunt, be a cunt with your own name.At least be a principled cunt. Cunt.

Calling anonymous cowards names doesn't help, sadly. They're already willing to put their words under the name "coward", since they already know what they are. You think that you can hurt them more than knowing they constantly live in fear?

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

so you call them names. however, alot of what is wrong with our current society is based off of people being able to draw in more weak minded individuals into false causes using manipulative tactics and false propaganda. so who is to say that banning much of this dribble wont be a net benefit to our culture?

im a big fan of free speech, and you can cry slippery slope all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there is a growing factor of subvertive ideas growing on this medium that is detrimental to all of us, especially the more impressionable-which, due to the numbers, and subsequent generations, effects everyone.

perhaps a well regulated and supervised commission is in order to limit the absolute bullshit that is spouted on this thing. sometimes people do need to be pruned to a small degree else we breed too many idiots that listen to and believe too much crap =-/

tell me you havent seen ridiculous believers of insane theories on the internet and wondered at how they have acquired so many followers?

idealogically, you may be right when you say everything needs to be free and open...but look at it realistically in what such openess is doing to people, and ask yourself if people are really ready to be exposed to every half-baked unthought idea that is able to be come up with.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

So are ours.

Signed,

An American

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

"so who is to say that banning much of this dribble wont be a net benefit to our culture?"

"Drivel". The word is "drivel".

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP proposal was for the Queen to take over

Last English monarch who tried to shut down Parliament and take over was Charles I. It didn't end happily for him. AC was silly even to raise it, as is amorsen for worrying about what will happen when (if) the PoW becomes the head of the firm. As cyber-vandal pointed out --they don't have any power.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have a serious issue with the female genitalia. Do you hate women?

Re:Fascists

[thaiceman]

You assume we want/support our monarchy. It's a leech on society, nothing more.

Here I think you need to be educated on your own system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Before you bash the Queen you should know your shit..

Signed,

An Asshole from the US

Re:Fascists

[locopuyo]

So are republicans left wing because they don't want guns banned?

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the point you don't get about terrorists. You describe the reaction of a civilised, at least somewhat educated Westerner capable of reasoning and compromise. All that is the opposite of a terrorist of the 21st century. These terrorists do not want to compromise, they don't readon, and don't haggle and they give a damn about civil rights.

In other words : no. That would not prevent terrorists. It would be nice for us, but still unacceptable for the typical terrorist which is most often a religious extremist. Finding a middle ground is never good enough for fanatical extremists.

That's like trying to pet and feed a tiger with catnip. It will still bite your head off.

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He is envious and wished he had one instead of his short dick.

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you are totally wrong. It's called libel, hate speech and incitement. And if you don't get sued, be prepared to be smashed in you stupid face with a sledge hammer.

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameron might be an imbecile, but he is not a right-wing extremist. If you think that, you should really look up the definition of right-wing extremist. You could be an imbecile yourself.

Re:Fascists

[rtb61]

Consider this. Right wing, the need to own a gun to feel safe. Left wing, no need to own a gun to be safe. A gun does not make you safe, a gun immediately puts you at risk.

Re:Fascists

[petermgreen]

Burning in-print books bought new does indeed seem counterproductive. The increased demand will just make the book more widely known and more readilly available, the opposite of the goal.

Burning in-print books bought secondhand will drive up the secondhand price making it more expensive for people to get a copy of the book but with a cap effectively set by the price of a new copy of the book.

Burning out of print books on the other hand can really reduce the availability if the rightsholder doesn't authorise a new print run for whatever reason.

Re:Fascists

[Person147]

If you can eradicate religion from the world, I am with you. Religion is the main source of irrational, illogical thinking that indirectly causes these problems. The UK's terrorists are home-grown and often fed propaganda by people from abroad (including family and friends) with more of the actual problems you outline above. The fundamental problems of the Middle East are simply spilling over, and as the UK has a massive Muslim population (both immigrants and UK born children of these immigrants), they can use religion as a way to attract young impressionable people to their cause.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume we want/support our monarchy. It's a leech on society, nothing more.

When your monarchy was running things you were a world power with an empire. Whadaya got now? Londonistan? Heads getting chopped in the streets? Has any monarch ever hung you out to dry the way your elected officials have?

Re:Fascists

[Third Position]

Unfortunately, beheading Charles didn't end well for the English, either. Note that that was their last experiment with a republic.

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

...because nobody ever got their head chopped off in a public place when the monarchs were in actual power.

BTW, "Londonistan" only exists in the fevered imagination of Melanie Phillips and her equally-detached-from-reality chums in the Mail and Express.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

We lost our nerve and got nostalgic for the 'Merry England' before the puritans that we didnt ship to you.
Remember though 'A Republic if you can keep it'.

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Andrew maybe? Flew choppers in the Falklands war. Certainly wasn't Edward.

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

...because nobody ever got their head chopped off in a public place when the monarchs were in actual power.

BTW, "Londonistan" only exists in the fevered imagination of Melanie Phillips and her equally-detached-from-reality chums in the Mail and Express.

Yeah, right. Try coming to London if you fancy proving yourself monumentally wrong.

Re:Fascists

[Drethon]

I have a cocker spaniel that keeps getting college enrollment offers. Maybe I should accept a couple on her behalf and send her into politics...

Re:Fascists

[bugmenot462]

You're thinking of Harry. William has been kept far away form actual combat; his closest brush with danger has been doing a joint mission with a US Coast Guard patrol that actually found some drug smugglers.

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

no its not you fucking twat waddle

Re:Fascists

[coofercat]

Plus we have a long history of killing monarchs who get a bit beyond themselves, which I feel ought to motivate in ways that mere Prime Ministers and their weenies are, sadly, not.

Re:Fascists

[AmiMoJo]

That only works if the population has a certain minimum level of education. That is why when countries that have been dictatorships for a very long time suddenly become democracies they often just elect extremists on the orders of religious leaders anyway. Unfortunately politicians in the UK have been working tirelessly to polarize people and stamp out any kind of reasoned political or philosophical thinking, preferring people to vote based on gut feelings they get from listening to soundbites and seeing attack ads.

The way to change society and make us more free is to educate people, preferably at school, in subjects like critical thinking and modern philosophy. Instead we teach religion and doublethink.

Re:Fascists

[AmiMoJo]

It's doubtful that while in tour they are put in any real harms way like the average low ranking officer. Certainly never made to ride in a poorly armoured vehicle. Considering that he had the best education money can buy he did pretty poorly at GCSE and A Level too.

Re:Fascists

[AmiMoJo]

The Queen doesn't have any real power. On paper she might be able to delay the government somewhat but due to past problems the current law is very clear that the final say on pretty much everything comes down to parliament.

We would be much better off getting rid of the Queen and having an elected House of Lords. Also we could open up all the palaces to tourists and rake in even more cash, while still keeping all the pageantry and history going. Most other countries that got rid of their royals did that and benefited massively from it, with their royal families remaining celebrities and participants in various events.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off,

They are simply descendants of the worst power hungry murdering twats that ever lived.

They should have nothing and be slung into a poor house to experience what their ancestors did to the rest of us!!.

At the moment they are simply the biggest set of dole scroungers imaginable.

Remember the crown estates is simply the land they grabbed from the rest of us.

The tourists love the history, old building's and other tat, and are pretty stupid to buy shit tat related to the twats.

We don't need a bunch of thick inbred idiots controlling our lives to their advantage. (Although with the present Tory government it is exactly what we have...)

 

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Prince William who will probably be King one day, served in combat in Afghanistan as a helicopter pilot

nope. Harry did some ass whooping in Afganistan, William did not. He was a search and rescue pilot in North Wales and did a fair bit of random training on things to get exposure to other parts of the services. Harry was properly in harms way, William was on an intentionally safer career (still fairly authentic).

Re:Fascists

[dryeo]

Yes, looks like I misremembered.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure who you're talking about, possibly Lord Mountbatten who did work his way up from midshipman to the head of the armed forces though he was never that close to being in line to the UK throne (he was the son of a German Prince and Great Grandson of Queen Victoria IIRC). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Lord Mountbatten's father, Prince Louis of Battenberg, also joined the Royal Navy as a midshipman and worked his way up to become First Sea Lord (the top post for a naval officer; c.f. First Lord of the Admiralty which is filled by a politician) during WW1. There was a press campaign against him because of his German ancestry and, even though he changed his name to Mountbatten to emphasise British allegence, the politicians forced him out of the job and into retirement.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not too worried, because I'm sure the government will only ban speech which is unarguably bad. There can be no creeping ban concern, here.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Her corgis could probably do a better job than the last few governments.

At least they are house trained to not dump on everything.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the idea of royalty actually serving in the forces and getting first hand experience in the horrors of war.
Yea me too. Too bad we don't have that rule for Presidents here in the US.

Before you can send someone to fight and die you should know the horrors of war first hand. There is only one word to describe war.

HORROR

If you don't want your people to rebel then treat them like Human Beings with rights liberity and privacy. It's a simple solution. Don't fuck the people and they will not fuck over you.

Re:Fascists

[JesseMcDonald]

A gun does not make you safe, a gun immediately puts you at risk.

Your enemy having a gun puts you at risk, whether you have one or not. Possessing a gun yourself (and knowing how to use it) doesn't make you safe in that situation, but it does even out the situation and give you a fighting chance you wouldn't otherwise have.

Even assuming gun-control laws were actually effective (a bit of a stretch, I know), two random people both armed with guns are much more likely to be evenly matched than two random people armed with close-range weapons or just their fists. Being armed means that the outcome depends more on preparation and training than brute strength. Perhaps if you are uncommonly strong or accustomed to hand-to-hand fighting you would personally be better off in a gun-free environment, but others who lack your natural prowess with violence benefit from the ability to rely on effective defensive tools when threatened.

Re:Fascists

[UnknownSoldier]

Agreed.

--
Only cowards censor.

Re:Fascists

[doccus]

...There was a press campaign against him because of his German ancestry and, even though he changed his name to Mountbatten to emphasise British allegence, the politicians forced him out of the job and into retirement.

Well, aren't they all properly Geman, in the male line, at least. The German roots go way back, IIRC..

Re: Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus the U.S. Was born.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

The country's democracy is repeatedly undermined by elected officials.

She does fuck all.

Re:Fascists

[umafuckit]

There's little to be gained by getting rid of the Queen. For starters it won't solve inequality, which is somehow what the idiot below (who doesn't even deserve a direct reply) seems to think. Most of the sovereign grant (which does not come from tax payer's money) goes towards paying the salaries of the people in the Queen's employ. Furthermore, the royals make very good ambassadors for the UK, as they're generally well thought of abroad, and they genuinely work hard at that role. They know they have to because it's the one thing they do well. So if you get rid of them, you lose all that. Yes, they have no direct power now but that doesn't mean they may not again in the future and we may even be grateful for it.

Yes, we don't choose the monarch or the house of lords but so what? You also don't choose who's in the vast civil service and that persists across elections and is involved in policy making. You don't choose what goes on in GCHQ. There's a lot of stuff we have no say in at all. The form our democracy takes means that the people get little or no direct say even in what the elected government does. The vast protests that took place when Blair decided to follow Bush into Iraq meant nothing at all to his government. They ploughed on regardless and that, of course, is natural because we chose them to make decisions for us. That's how it works: you choose the people who are the least dickish and hope they don't fuck up. If they did, you try not to re-elect them (and even there you don't always succeed). So with that crap going on in the background, why get rid of the Queen? What will actually become better? How will Joe Bloggs benefit? Or is the reason for getting rid of her simply to satisfy a short-sighted republican wet-dream?

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said.

They do realize that terrorist drivel sounds like shite if they're doing a good job and only sounds reasonable when they're fucking up. That's the point.

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use words you don't understand. What you meant to say is "Authoritarian" or "Surveillance State".

Fascism is a category of political movement encompassing a revolutionary, nationalist base supporting authoritarian protective policy. While the authoritarian part fits fairly nicely, a government that came to power only by entering into a coalition with the 3rd place runners cannot be described as revolutionary, and while the protest votes are going to the United Kingdom Independence Party, this coalition can't claim to be nationalist with any conviction. While Fascists advocate expanding their national territory at the expense of militarily weaker neighbours (ala Russia & The Crimean) the coalition is currently in the middle of a political campaign to keep Scotland from declaring themselves an independent state - not exactly how imperialists do things. Inter-class friction is running higher than ever in living memory and the state is regarded with more contempt than ever.

I'd bet money that it was primarily Americans that voted this up. This reeks of their childish simplification and redefinition of dramatic words to fit their current political requirements.

Too bad.

[o_ferguson]

We all want things we can't have.

Re:Too bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Been in the UK in the last 50 years? They've got ludicrous bureaucracies for *everything*. There are reasons that "1984" and "V for Vigilante" were set there, and that London has the highest percentage of government mandated CCTV/capita. Note also that they don't actually *use* the CCTV's to fight crime. They use them for bureaucratic monitoring, such as insisting that people pay the tax for cars in London, or that they park correctly. They're not used for pickpocketing, luggage theft, or even prosecuting vandals. (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records. Been there, done that.)

Having yet another bureaucracy means more control of political discussion, pure and simple.

Re:Too bad.

[lister king of smeg]

There are reasons that "1984" and "V for Vigilante"were set there, and that London has the highest percentage of government mandated CCTV/capita.

I believe that would be V for Vendetta.

Re:Too bad.

[cyber-vandal]

You're right. No-one has been convicted on CCTV evidence in the UK. Apart from all the people who were.

Re:Too bad.

[BasilBrush]

There are reasons that "1984"(sic) and "V for Vigilante"(sic) were set there

Yes. Because the UK has a disproportionately high number of a good writers, and both Eric Blair and Alan Moore live(d) there.

Note also that they don't actually *use* the CCTV's to fight crime. They use them for bureaucratic monitoring, such as insisting that people pay the tax for cars in London, or that they park correctly. They're not used for pickpocketing, luggage theft, or even prosecuting vandals.

They use the CCTV for all of those things. I think you've been reading too much Daily Mail.

(Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records. Been there, done that.)

They tend to use the CCTV live. To guide cops to the places where these things are happening. Combing back through recordings is a different matter, with a different balance. It's a significant use of resources to comb through the video, and then the individuals are long gone from the scene of the crime, and are unlikely to be easily identified. It obviously won't be worth it for for petty crimes. But it is done for more serious crimes.

Not that I'm in favour of all the CCTV. But lying about the uses it's put to isn't helpful.

Re:Too bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes. That's what the cameras are for. If you put up a camera labelled "Congestion Charge Enforcement", then the only thing that camera can do - by law - is record the license numbers of cars that drive past it. And the only thing that can legally be done with that record is to compare it with the database of cars whose congestion charge is paid up for the day they were observed.

Any other use of that record would be a criminal offence. That's EU/UK data protection laws, and the US could profit from it.

Re:Too bad.

[amiga3D]

V for Vulgar?

Re:Too bad.

[Jack9]

> But lying about the uses it's put to isn't helpful.

> (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records.

He was specific and correct based on my experience in the UK of 2007.

Continue to troll away. That doesn't change the reality.

Re:Too bad.

[umafuckit]

There are reasons that "1984" and "V for Vigilante" were set there, and that London has the highest percentage of government mandated CCTV/capita.

1984 was published in 1949. Orwell was a forward thinking kinda guy but he didn't know about 21st century CCTV cameras.

Re:Too bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell was a forward thinking kinda guy but he didn't know about 21st century CCTV cameras.

Yeah, I mean if he had, he would have thought to write about the cameras installed in everyone's private living areas .. or something even more far out like two-way telescreens ... Nope nothing Orwellian at all about being surveilled via a video link.

Re:Too bad.

[Z00L00K]

Don't forget Max Headroom.

Re:Too bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the context of this discussion of a government going after evil sayers, a very telling Freudian slip. Broken shire seems to forget the old saying that a barking population doesn't bite, at least not much.

Re:Too bad.

[Vanders]

He was specific and correct based on my experience in the UK of 2007.

Based on my experience of the past 34-and-a-bit years in the UK, he was talking complete bollocks, but continue to talk bollocks. That doesn't change the reality.

Re:Too bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, V for Vulva?

Re:Too bad.

[Jack9]

> he was talking complete bollocks, but continue to talk bollocks. That doesn't change the reality.

That's right, it doesn't change the reality. Please present ANY evidence to the assertion that CCTV is used (even selectively) to apprehend criminals based on Citizen reports and requests for review. I would be very interested in what doesn't exist, because that is not what the CCTV is used for. CCTV is largely run by private contract, so there are fees associated with obtaining footage for investigatory purposes. It's not in the budget to chase down personal property theft...outside of vehicles and government property and vicious crimes where they are obligated to remit the relatively bad recordings by existing policy.

Studies conducted on CCTV after 2000, when there was data to be had:

Assessing the impact of CCTV (2005)
Data on London crime figures vs. number of cameras (2007 and the rehash Effects of Closed Circuit
Television Surveillance on
Crime - 2008)
CCTV and its effectiveness in tackling crime (2009 and rehashed in the aggregate review A review of recent published evidence
regarding the impact of CCTV on crime - 2009)
took about 10 minutes to find. The personal crime statistics, where they are referenced or exist, are of specific interest. Not that these show directly that there is a policy in ignoring citizen reports, but that there's evidence they are not acted upon.

Reliance on CCTV has led to falling numbers of arrests while crime rates have not changed significantly. The UK government is notorious for lying to it's own people (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html - magical!), so it's to be expected that some are so indoctrinated they actually believe any statistics now. You've supposedly lived in the UK through the period that CCTV has not been used for pursuing personal crime, so you're a liar or ignorant. Good luck.

Another ball of fire in the brains department.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Like they can remove child porn and pirated software from the internet. Now they want to scrub it of everything "unsavory"?

Do these politicians just sit around inventing stupid things to do to keep themselves busy and thus employed?

Rember that porn filter

[lister king of smeg]

Welcome to the slippery slope. First porn for the children, then illegal torrents, now what ever they feel like banning enjoy your fascism, And remember big brother GCHQ is watching.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[currently_awake]

It's almost like the government is trying to motivate people into using encryption and dark nets. Oh well, if they really want everyone using a VPN to talk with an offshore darknet then I guess we'll just have to oblige.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like freedom provided by the government is on the way out. Time to get our own freedom: time for darknets. They can block what ever plain text crap they want, but when then come for the crypto and P2P routing, thats where we have to make a stand. That is the last hope, and we better not lose that. I'd like to stop this craziness before then, but we absolutely can't let them force all crypto or acceptance of incoming connections to be on a whitelist. As the darknets continue to defeat their filtering with increasing ease, they will come for them, and we must not let them fall: that would be the end of free communication. We are heading that way and I fear this far more than any "terrorists".

I would be perfectly willing to allow terrorists to try and recruit online if that is the price I have to pay to keep my freedom. Being able to browse their recruiting information should even be useful and educational. You can learn things like what issues they take with us and our society, and what misunderstandings they are leveraging. Its hard to convince people not to support something if you hide information about it from the public. Maybe some of their claims are legitimate grievances, or maybe its all crazy bullshit. It would be good to know. It seems like such material is worth studying a bit, not hiding. If I want to support some movement, and some subset of movements that oppose the government are censored, its hard to have an open debate about the issues. It seems undemocratic to rely on keeping the citizens ignorant of claims against the government. If such claims are unfounded, then open debate should show them as such, and make the groups behind them look like idiots: that will deter people from joining them much more then turning them into a secret club.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[PopeRatzo]

I think a lot of people are changing aspects of their behavior.

I encrypt most communications with friends and family now, just to be a dick to whoever's doing surveillance. It's not that I care so much about protecting what's in those communications as I just don't want their lives to be one bit easier than they need to be.

Sometimes I run Tor for the most mundane things, like looking for a recipe for chocolate flan cake, or the lyrics to songs by Bombay Bicycle Club. It really doesn't add more than a few seconds to what I'm doing and it gives me a tiny bit of satisfaction.

For all I know, they have a back door to GPG and other crypto, but I can't do anything about that.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[nurb432]

And then just the act of using a darknet is grounds for jail. Wont matter what content, just that they catch you doing it.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[amorsen]

It is unlikely that they will do something as obvious as that. It will be more like upgrade to existing crimes or make it so that using a darknet shows intent to commit a crime.

So you wrote something offensive? Antisocial Behaviour, it could get you an ABSO. You wrote it while hiding your tracks with Tor? Now we are talking conspiracy or perverting the course of justice.

And what if you run a Tor node yourself but do not commit any crimes? Surely you are aware that others might be using it for bad things, so that gets us back to conspiracy.

Re: Rember that porn filter

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a non-anonymous COWARD.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[rtb61]

The slope of course they are heading for, user pays. Want to put up a web site, why should the public have to pay to ensure it is 'safe' and acceptable. A simple preview fee to ensure that it meets government requirements, say around $10,000 (fully tax deductible of course) should be enough to push most people off the internet and if fees are to difficult due to continual changes perhaps $1,000,000 permanent licence fee to guarantee all troublesome sites are blocked (not porn sites of course they can afford it). The goal to force the internet back to the preferred main stream media model where only the few can afford to publish content and the majority are silenced. The majority need to be told what to think and they are the only ones with those evil anti-government thoughts, not to tell each other what they are actually thinking. Poms actually voted for this government, what the fuck were they thinking.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[L4t3r4lu5]

My Raspberry Pi runs as a permanently connected Tor relay. I'm not brave (stupid?) enough to run an exit node, but at least I improve the resillience and throughput of the network.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[AmiMoJo]

No need, they already have all the tools required and began abusing them years ago.

If you are using Tor and they find you then you did it wrong, but let's say for the sake of argument that is the case. As part of the investigation your house will be raided at dawn, with armed officers kicking in the door. They do that in the hopes of getting your computer while it is turned on so they can grab the encryption keys out of memory. If you are unlucky they might accidentally shoot you too.

Assuming you survive this they will take every electronic device in your house away, including games consoles, smart TVs, phones and the like. Chances are there is at lest something in your internet history or web cache to throw in some child porn chargers, or they can just plant a few files if not, on top of whatever it was they were originally raiding you for. Then you have to wait a year or two with that hanging over your head, and possibly orders not to use the internet or buy another phone. You will lose your job immediately of course. Assuming you don't commit suicide it will eventually get to court and you might even get off, but your life will have been destroyed in the mean time and there is no compensation or way to get your old job back.

The extreme slowness of our justice system and the lack of any redress for those falsely accused allow this to happen.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[Anonymous Coward]

I encrypt most communications with friends and family now, just to be a dick to whoever's doing surveillance.

So no one in your family is over 30, I take it?

Because there is no way in dog's green earth that Gran will ever be able to use encryption.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[PopeRatzo]

Because there is no way in dog's green earth that Gran will ever be able to use encryption.

Gran's gone, unfortunately. But it only took about five minutes to set up my wife and daughter's systems to use crypto for our emails and texts. A couple of my friends were already there.

It's getting easier all the time to convince people to use crypto thanks to what we're learning in the news practically every day. And GPG was already pretty easy to set up.

Re:Rember that porn filter

[PopeRatzo]

My Raspberry Pi runs as a permanently connected Tor relay.

I gotta go find out how to do that. Sounds like a good project for next weekend.

Unsavoury?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, they are going to take down or block all the assorted unsavoury government web sites?

Re:Unsavoury?

[BeerCat]

So, they are going to take down or block all the assorted unsavoury government web sites?

Or better still they clearly need to block themselves in perpetuity (to quote from one of their former "dear leaders", it would deny them the "oxygen of publicity")

True

[Anonymous Coward]

I want that "unsavory" UK Goverment to be removed 'cause they are shitting right now in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (free of expression).

Self-propelling Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly critical discussion of the potential abuse of such power is also unsavory, and must therefore be censored to prevent unsavoriness.

Re:Self-propelling Censorship

[PPH]

We apologize again for the fault in the headlines. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

Re:Self-propelling Censorship

[Hypotensive]

It's working well for Putin.

Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Badger Nadgers]

Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. 1) Politics 2) Religion 3) Bankers 4) Advertising

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[SuricouRaven]

And 5) The Daily Mail.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Badger Nadgers]

6) "Celebrities"

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Krishnoid]

7) British cuisine?

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

8) Real news on the BBC

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Virtucon]

no such thing that's why there's all those currie houses.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[SuricouRaven]

Not entirely true. We did invent the pudding, though the name is french.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[fred911]

The legal profession would like to thank the professions in positions 3-5 for being more unsavory.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[lister king of smeg]

yeah and you made it out of blood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Americans started making pudding out of chocolate like we were civilized.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[cyber-vandal]

I've often thought a surgical strike on tabloid newspaper offices would make Britain a happier and more tolerant place.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

And 5) The Daily Mail.

Brilliant. So you're exactly like them.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now I want some black pudding.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

5) British cuisine.

Sayeth the inhabitant of that world-famous arbiter of haute-cuisine---Mississippi.

"But", you say, "there's lots of fine food in Mississippi". Agreed, but Brit food is pretty damn good.

The number of Michelin starred restaurants in Mississippi is...zero? Even Glasgow, that city mocked for deep fried everything, has a Michelin starred restaurant.

Yeah, I get the joke, but it's a stereotype that isn't actually remotely true any more,

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Chrontius]

Sayeth the inhabitant of that world-famous abattoir of haute-cuisine---Mississippi.

"But", you say, "there's lots of fine food in Mississippi". Agreed, but Brit food is pretty damn good.

The number of Michelin starred restaurants in Mississippi is...zero? Even Glasgow, that city mocked for deep fried everything, has a Michelin starred restaurant.

Yeah, I get the joke, but it's a stereotype that isn't actually remotely true any more,

Fixed that for you.

Re: Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Guardian knows all about that.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[SuricouRaven]

You didn't get the joke.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thigh Gaps, Visible panty lines, Anorexia, bulimia, DIY Mushroom preparation, bikini string lines.

But somehow, politicians kissing babies will never be 'unsavory'

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Scarletdown]

Great, now I want some black pudding.

We are out of those. However, we can provide plenty of ochre jellies or gray oozes instead. Please roll a save vs. psychic crush.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

9) James Brokenshire

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in Britain can pudding be served either as starters, mains or dessert.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Glasgow, that city mocked for deep fried everything, has a Michelin starred restaurant

That's probably because it doesn't serve any British food.

One man's terrorist

[msobkow]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Fuck the UK and their censorship.

Re:One man's terrorist

[SuricouRaven]

Don't blame all of us. It's just our government being full of idiots right now. Nothing much we can do about it - even when elections run around, censorship policy is rather low on the agenda right now.

Re:One man's terrorist

[amorsen]

There is massive support for this kind of policy among the UK population. Perhaps not among young people in London, but practically everyone else welcomes government Internet censorship.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Most are yet another tyrant fighter.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Most young people in London (but as a northener those southern Jessies in London are worse ) are so far up their own arse ( bit like young people every were and Every when ) trying to be cool they don't give a shit about censorship as long as they have the new fashionable shiny.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there is massive perceived support for it, ask real people on the street, they're more likely to hate the idea of the government censoring what people do on the internet without some sort of court injunction against said individual(s). Blocking child porn is one thing, arbitrarily blocking anything the government feels like won't likely win them many friends at the next election. Especially if it blocks something the vast majority is likely to notice like everyday pornography.

There is also massive support for UKIP right now, it has even taken 3rd place in opinion poles and kicked libdems into 4th. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-puts-ukip-in-third-place-above-the-lib-dems-8622281.html

Re: One man's terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed Downing street and the Polish Empire idiots have started a fire which scares the shit out of themselves. Now they want Germany to put even more oil into the fire.

Get a handle on this crap, please.

Re:One man's terrorist

[tleaf100]

bring in my voting system. one person,one bullet. there would be less of a race to become a politico if they knew that every "voter"only needed one decent shot and their career finished prematurely. beats one man,one vote hands down.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Drishmung]

There is massive support for this kind of policy among the UK population. Perhaps not among young people in London, but practically everyone else welcomes government Internet censorship.

And you know this, why? Because of what you read in the papers or see on TV?

It all depends on the questions you ask. "Do you want to protect children from predators?" "Of course I do!". "See sir, another supporter of Internet censorship."

Re: One man's terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the thing about terrorism, it can mean almost anything. Fear = Terror and people fear change so new political parties are terrorists.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

"See sir, another supporter of Internet censorship."

Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

Re:One man's terrorist

[umafuckit]

Indeed. I'm British and living in the UK right now. Next I'm moving to the middle of Europe. If it's nice I'll stay there. No need to go back to the UK.

Re:One man's terrorist

[amorsen]

I know it from the people I speak to. They do not see it as censorship. They use the same arguments you find online from Chinese people defending the Great Firewall.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

>Do you want to protect children from predators?

Oh, if only there was something parents could do to protect _their own children_ online.

But alas, they're inept and lazy, and abdicated that responsibility to the government.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Drishmung]

So you are taking the sample of people you speak to, your friends and colleagues (I'm guessing), and assuming that they are representative of the UK population as a whole.

That's not statistically valid. Tempting though it may be to assume that because the circle you move in appears to support something, doesn't mean that

practically everyone [else] welcomes government Internet censorship.

Nor does it mean the opposite. Without a proper statistical sample you really can't tell, one way or the other.

Re:One man's terrorist

[amorsen]

So I can't get my information from TV or the papers, nor can I get it from the people I meet. Instead I just have to believe that there is a significant fraction of people in the UK who do not support government censorship. Somewhere, out there, they are waiting...

Well, Andrew & Arnold does have some subscribers, so they do exist.

Re:One man's terrorist

[Drishmung]

No, I'm saying you don't know. You can't trust the papers, and you can't trust your friends. It may well be that Internet censorship has wide support. It may equally well be true that it lacks massive popular support. Unless you, or someone else, does a properly conducted (and reproducible) survey, what you've got is no more than an opinion.

Safe From Radicals

[Bob9113]

Good to know England is once again fighting to keep the world safe from those who advocate the violent overthrow of the lawful government.

Re:Safe From Radicals

[jd2112]

As well as those who advocate peaceful overthrow of the lawful government.

Re:Safe From Radicals

[cyber-vandal]

Why don't we ask the Chileans, the Iraqis, the Indonesians and the Iranians about that.

"Unsavory" like dissenting opinions?

[Anonymous Coward]

And still the UK continues it's not so graceful slide towards fascism.
Screw it i'm voting UKIP next time (like it'll make a difference *sigh*)

Re:"Unsavory" like dissenting opinions?

[Badger Nadgers]

Alan Sked, who launched Ukip in 1991, hs said "quite clearly UKIP nowadays is led by morons who have no policies and are fascistic and the chickens are coming home to roost" and launched a highly personal attack on UKIP's leader Nigel Farage, accusing him of recruiting former members of the National Front to the party.

Something about 7 proxxies....

[Anonymous Coward]

Joke's on them.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dwarf_fortress.png

Why do not they "remove" themselves from our lives

[mike555]

I consider governments unsavory and want them to be removed from our lives.

Set a better example

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait!? Didn't they just say something about the Russians blocking websites of people who had views that were different than the government? Don't just cut the negative views, boost the positive! It's not the propaganda that cause people to riot it is the lack of discourse. Keep the news smart, educated and above the average intelligence of the viewer and maybe the viewer will learn something.

Reason for laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone please explain to me how this doesn't totally undermine the idea behind having laws in the first place?

headline != article

[tomhath]

UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

The UK minister for immigration and security, James Brokenshire has called for the government to do more...

One bureaucrat suggesting the government should do more to flag YouTube videos is not the same as the UK Government wanting to actually do it.

Re:headline != article

[mrbester]

Yet one shrill think-of-the-children bint was enough for the threat of filter legislation if the ISPs didn't do it "voluntarily"...

Re:headline != article

[Anonymous Coward]

The minister is not a bureaucrat. I can't tell whether you don't know what a "bureaucrat" is, or whether you don't understand the UK's political structure

James Brokenshire is a politician. So a bunch of people vote for James, rather than the other options they were given, to represent them in the Commons, the elected part of the Parliament of the UK. Then, David Cameron - also a politician, and the leader of the biggest political party in the Commons, thus Prime Minister - selected James to be in charge of immigration and security. The actual people running immigration and security are all bureaucrats, but the guy at the top of the pile, deciding what to do, rather than doing it is the Minister, James, who is a politician.

Now, "immigration and security" has bugger all to do with the Internet, so you are correct that James' opinion is not magically UK Government policy, but it's a mistake to say he's just a "bureaucrat". James gets to make policy, albeit not directly on this subject.

Re:headline != article

[Anonymous Coward]

migration and security, James Brokenshire has called for the government to do more...

One bureaucrat suggesting the government should do more to flag YouTube videos is not the same as the UK Government wanting to actually do it.

This is a case of the government using a wonk to 'test the waters', wonk makes statement, PR bods see how sheeple react, too many uncomfortable baas from the sheeple, higher up wonk gets trotted out to say it isn't the government's current intention to do so, but feel a wider debate on the subject is merited...or some other such kind of weasel words...no baas, then it's a done deal.

Re:headline != article

[Hognoxious]

James gets to make policy, albeit not directly on this subject.

He can't make new laws, though, which is what this proposal would require. There are 600-plus other MPs who have a say on that.

Freedom of Speech/Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of Speech/Expression means the freedom to do wrong too, This is wrong.

Re:Freedom of Speech/Expression

[nurb432]

Which is limited in the UK. ( this isn't the US we are discussing here, this time )

Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves

[Nichotin]

Yep. Let's invade some foreign countries and occupy them. Then when we get the extremist fallout following our actions, then let's try to solve it with more draconian actions! I would have had some level of sympathy for for targeting extremist material online (while I would still be against by principle) if UK was a country that had approached the 'War on Terror' in a humane way rather than going to war (and going to war on false premises as well...)

Re:Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Let's invade some foreign countries and occupy them. Then when we get the extremist fallout following our actions..

Aye, just wait to all those 'freedom fighters' in Syria who're uk passport holders come back...we're in for a extremely fun time.

Re:Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves

[amiga3D]

I never understood this desire to shut down dissenting opinion. I want to hear what the people that hate me have to say. It's information I need. The more they have to say the better I like it.

Re: Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

UK-USA weapons industry need a justification. Please look forward for extreme-Sunnite immigration for the next 20 decades. They first used it against the Russkies, then they decided to use it against the own population, as the Russkie bogeyman was so weak then.
It seems Russkie makes a good bogeyman for the next few weeks, but after that, look forward for reliable Wahabists to detonate pressure cookers or to slice some soldier into pieces.

You really need to care about all those jobs at Detica, L3, Raytheon and GCHQ.

Re:Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood this desire to shut down dissenting opinion. I want to hear what the people that hate me have to say. It's information I need. The more they have to say the better I like it.

It's basically an admission that your faith is weak, and thus an confession that what you believe so strongly in may not actually be true.

If your position cannot support itself without your "help", you attempt to make it appear like anything that doesn't support your position doesn't exist or is a total lie. You can wrap it up with a let's-not-corrupt-the-children tinsel if you like, but since kids are actually cynical little bastards who catch on pretty quickly that grown-ups are hypocritical phonies, all that really does is make the forbidden knowledge more appealing to them.

since the USA is not "that guy" anymore

[turkeydance]

welcome to All Those Guys

I know a better way to radicalise people

[BlatantRipoff]

"Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas,"

Trying to restrict the free flow of information through censorious means is a sure way to get a few radicals. So is trying to enforce your rule and remove info that isn't in your country.

Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[Anonymous Coward]

...designed by an advisor who was later arrested for CP?

...in a country whose government has collected a million pictures of naked Americans cyber-webcamming on Yahoo?

...that has one surveillance camera for every 11 people in the country?

...whose brilliant standards of morality lead to the persecution and destruction of everyone from Oscar Wilde to Alan Turing?

Fuck you, James Brokenshire. How's that for unsavory?

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey as the merkins say on here about the NSA I don't care if The agents of the British Secret State spy on Americans that is their job and I want value for the tax I pay for their wages

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[cyber-vandal]

Someone from the country of Jim Crow laws shouldn't really be throwing stones in their glass house. Plus you lot persecuted homosexuals just as energetically.

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[lgw]

Can you browse those million pictures of naked Americans? No? Then you surely didn't get value for money!

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[Anonymous Coward]

stereotypical naked corpulent Americans ? I'm glad some spook has to do it instead of me. Im sure that would be classed as a cruel and unusual punishment otherwise.

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[jedidiah]

If that's the best you've go then we're in a pretty good position really. If you've got to go digging that far back then you aren't terribly good at finding our faults. That much is certain.

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is the US grew up and continues to improve. Brits seem to enjoy keeping progress going backwards. I'll just say this, like I am told as an American rather often, you have the government you deserve.

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[tleaf100]

got any proof that a million pics have been gathered? wrong,dt took the uk population and divided by the estimated number of ALL cctv cameras in the uk,my 7 cams are there to stop burglaries and to put off the dozens of local drug dealers from dealing outside my flat. exactly what did wilde and turin do? one a talentless drug addict who liked young boys and turin was perfectly replaceable,bletchley did just as well without him and many there consider him a problem,not a help. he was convicted in court of what is still a criminal act. you should stop believing crap you are fed by the media. whats wrong with lynching faggots? some of us would volunteer to set light to them en masse,uganda and others have the right idea.you want to be a faggot,do it in america.

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[sjames]

If it helps any, I don't believe the U.S. government should be deciding what is acceptable on the web either.

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[wonkey_monkey]

Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter designed by an advisor who was later arrested for CP?

No.

...whose brilliant standards of morality lead to the persecution and destruction of everyone from Oscar Wilde to Alan Turing?

Are you from the US? If so, would you like to discuss standards of morality in the US 60 years ago?

everyone from Oscar Wilde to Alan Turing?

What does that even mean? I think what you meant was "some people, including Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing."

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[operagost]

Yeah... we got rid of those, and we're aren't making new ones.

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone from the country of Jim Crow laws shouldn't really be throwing stones in their glass house. Plus you lot persecuted homosexuals just as energetically.

Not even in the same class.

0/10

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter...

[Hognoxious]

These are teens. Some of them are hardly plump yet.

Ummm, so I'm told.

Slippery slope

[nurb432]

Nope, not one of those.. not at all.. Is anyone surprised?

Welcome to Australia, circa 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

So Stephen Conroy decided to try his hand at UK politics?

We dealt with this same problem in Australia about 5 years ago and the people spoke. The minister was out, the policy trashed, and life went on.

Brokenshire.

[Anonymous Coward]

His name is Brokenshire? That's oddly apt.

Re:We Said "no" 230 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

puritanical

Hold on - didn't the Mayflower sail west?

In more recent times... "the FCC increased the fine per indecency violation from $27,500 to $325,000 shortly after the event."

sure

[Anonymous Coward]

and i want 3 tittied porn, so that makes loggerheads now dont it?

Someone should just

[Anonymous Coward]

shoot James Brokenshire in the head and put his head on a stake in the town square as a warning to other Fascists.

American giving up the internet

[vix86]

And this is the kind of stuff that many of us fear when the US gives up ICANN/the internet. First its porn, then what next?

Re:American giving up the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a good point. The big upside of the US having more control over the internet is that fascist regimes such as the UK have less (I'm a Brit; using AAISP; keen to emigrate).

The US is far from perfect (less than a shadow of a country I used to call America), but is still much better than average when it comes to liberty.

Re: American giving up the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg to differ. Look at their prison system and population. What you are looking for is probably Switzerland. Even France would be better.

Re:American giving up the internet

[StikyPad]

Get off the soapbox. We have no moral superiority, and we don't even rank that high in freedom of the press. We're below the UK FFS.

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedo...

Re: American giving up the internet

[cbhacking]

Most of Scandinavia is doing a lot better than we are, too. I'm semi-seriously looking into emigrating to Sweden. Iceland is also on the list for consideration.

Re:American giving up the internet

[twocows]

Considering the UK's absurdly overbearing libel laws, I find your suggestion (even with source) hard to believe.

Re:American giving up the internet

[misexistentialist]

Must have been ranked before the new press regulations were enacted; if it's an honest barometer the UK should fall to the bottom 10% for 2014

Re: American giving up the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed you never mentioned Finland or Norway.

Re:American giving up the internet

[shutdown -p now]

ICANN is not "the internet". It's just the root DNS. The nearest equivalent is control over the assignment of telephone country codes - and how many instances of censorship are you aware in that area?

Re: American giving up the internet

[shutdown -p now]

What you are looking for is probably Switzerland

The country that recently banned minarets?

Even France would be better.

The country which persecutes students wearing religious symbols in classes?

Re:American giving up the internet

[shutdown -p now]

The PFI is a fairly arbitrary ranking; it's pretty much a politicized opinion piece. I don't think that any reasonable person would rank UK above US, given libel laws in the former and lack of hate speech laws in the latter.

US is not the champion of freedoms in all categories, I'll grant you that. But as far as free speech goes, it's still unmatched (which, if anything, tells more about the sorrowful state of other countries on the subject).

Re:American giving up the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off the soapbox. We have no moral superiority, and we don't even rank that high in freedom of the press. We're below the UK FFS.

However, let's look at reality. America currently controls it and there is a wide variety of "unsavoury" sites available with no real call to remove them. So let's get back on that high horse or soap box or whatever and carry on.

Der Führer would be laughing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see criticism of the US by someone in the UK I just
laugh. The US is a paradise compared to the UK, which is a living hell
and a police state.

What a sad little has-been of a country.

And it's getting worse every year.

Self censoring already the standard

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Pat Condell on YouTube, self censoring is already the standard in the UK.

Re:Self censoring already the standard

[mvdwege]

Not spouting bigotry is being polite. Some self-censorship is a good thing.

Some sort of weird catch 22

[tomxor]

But the asshat who understands the internet enough not to attempt to sensor it will get my vote. Let the race of the asshats commence.

The world becomes less free everyday

[Anonymous Coward]

The involvement of governernment to limit freedom is now a daily activity. Not just in the U.K.
I can't imagine how a website "radicalized anybody", wouldn't you really need to be radical to begin with?
It will soon lead to: well we have banned any political opposition to the current ruling party, watch it's comming!

Re:"Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! there's nothing wrong with Spotted Dick!

Re:We Said "no" 230 years ago

[amiga3D]

Oh yes it did. They've evolved into New Englanders now and I'm sure their ancestors would be shocked at how that's turned out.

Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

>we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted ... overseas

So, something that could be legal in say... Iran?

And yet the British think that they have the right to control what is on the Internet?

They couldn't be any more fascist if they tried. And yet they have the audacity to criticize China?

Re:Freedom Rings In Crimea

[jedidiah]

Yeah. With a 96% vote. Nothing fishy about that... not at all...

*sigh*

[koan]

It won't stop there, they will a whole lot of things "unsavoury".

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

First it was unsavoury content, next it will be dissent content.

China welcomes the UK as the 23rd satellite province.

No I'm not joking either, it really is getting that bad.

fuk off beta

[Anonymous Coward]

go away beta

Here in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

...meanwhile the pro-war propaganda apparatus of mainstream media is running at 150% levels.

All the big outlets seem to have resurrected GÃbbel's tactics. Lies, hyperbole, idealism,...

I guess that Brokenshire guys wants to eliminate the last calls for sheeple not to join the war of the 1%.

Happy dieing in Charge of Light Brigade 2.0

Re:"Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed?

[RDW]

Few things are as unsavory as English cuisine.

In England it's 'unsavoury', you insensitive clod.

Yes, well, when the tide comes in...

[dbc]

.. it washes away my sand castles. Let's stop the tide from coming in.

In theory, anyone can point at any DNS root servers that they want to. In practice, most peoples' moms don't know how to do that. In practice, "the internet", as far as most moms are concerned, is whatever Google indexes. If the big search engines decide to start indexing from some alternative set of root servers, then all the ISPs will point there, too, and ICANN won't survive a week.

Define "Unsavory"

[walterbyrd]

Does that just mean anything the government does not like? Would a video of police beating an innocent man be considered "unsavory?'

Top 3 things to remove from the Web in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything to do with the Royal family - unsavory.
Anything to do with the Parliament - over the top unsavory.
Anything to do with UK Law Enforcement - total unsavoryasshatednessintheextreme - make sure to include filters for every ip of every police cam in the UK can't have unsavory events being recorded over the internets in the UK, someone unsavory might unsavor an unsavory event.

I don't believe it !

[DTentilhao]

PROTHERO: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

DASCOMBE: It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people -- ref

Certainly...

[Type44Q]

UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

I can certainly agree with this and, I might add, we can start by deleting all traces of any online recipes that call for (*shudder*) fucking tropical fruit such as pineapple as a goddamned pizza topping.

On an slightly less sarcastic note (note that I wasn't completely joking about the fucking abomination that's pineapple pizza, BTW), someone please bash in the skulls of these stupid fascist puppet fucks. Now.

Re:Certainly...

[Drethon]

You have my vote, where do I submit the ballot?

Re:Certainly...

[Megane]

You think pineapple on pizza is bad? In Japan, they put yellow corn and mayonnaise on pizza.

And pineapple on pizza in and of itself isn't bad. There is such a thing as a dessert pizza, though it's usually done with apples. It is pineapple along with meat and cheese that is the problem. I can't understand people who mix savory with sweet, it is disgusting. At least corn and mayonnaise is still savory with savory, even if may be disgusting in other ways.

Re:Certainly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Japanese mayonnaise is sweetened. Using it is mixing savory with sweet. In fact, the Japanese balance savoriness with sweetness more than most... as is seen in many of their sauces (tonkatsu, yakitori, even teriyaki in Japan is generally sweeter than the US versions of the sauce tend to be), egg preparations, etc. etc. etc.

Commercial ketchup is the most common US example of savory mixed with sweet. It's completely evenly balanced between sourness from vinegar, sweetness from HFCS, pungency and savoriness from tomato and (usually) garlic. Steak sauces like A1 have dried stone fruits, raisins, and sugar... And BBQ sauces, of course, more often than not have some sort of sweet component. Even in areas like the Carolinas, where the sauces tend to be seasoned vinegar, brown sugar is often used in the rub, and sugar is almost always used in the brines for the meat.

The larger and older cuisines, like Chinese, Indian, and Italian constantly balance out sweet and savory flavors in the same dish, or same component of a dish. Many Chinese pork buns contain shredded pork sweet enough to be candy.

Of course, coffee, which is a dry roasted bean, is not a sweet flavor, but is quite often paired with sugar. Same with chocolate, which is, perhaps, the most common example, worldwide, of mixing sweetness with a savory flavor. Chocolate was used, exclusively, in a savory context, in food and as a brewed beverage, similar to coffee, for millennia, before it was brought to Europe and turned into a confection. It being sweetened happened very recently in its history.

So, unless you think that all of those things are disgusting, and your taste in food is objective enough to be able to assert that one of the most commonly used seasoning techniques across the boundaries of culture and history is 'disgusting,' then it's quite clear that you don't actually hate sweetness mixed with savory flavors, you just aren't interested in adding sweetness to flavors that *you* have always experienced without sweetness.

Re:Certainly...

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider Justin Bieber to be unsavory on a massive scale, as well as most other USA celebs, can we get those asshats removed from the UK Intranet?

Re:Certainly...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fool you are. Pineapple and ham is a great pizza combo! To be fair, I was pretty skeptical for a while too....until I, you know, actually tried it!

captcha: asteroid

Re:Certainly...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love pineapple in the Pizza.

Re:Certainly...

[Type44Q]

You think pineapple on pizza is bad? In Japan, they put yellow corn and mayonnaise on pizza.

Tell me about it; I grew up there. :) A particularly insidious combination of ingredients (typical Tokyo coffeeshop fare in the late 70's/early 80's - don't know about these days) was a hotdog bun with spaghetti in it, topped with whipped cream and mandarin orange slices. I shit you not...

I for one

[AbrasiveCat]

would be fine if goatse vanished from the Internet

Danger: elimination of opinions we don't like

[Anonymous Coward]

The government has no business censoring communications period. It's extremely dangerous to the public good to mandate censorship or allow one group, person, or entity to gain significant control of communications (news, opinion, etc). The people in power who control TV/Radio programming, News Papers, and similar outlets are the real threat (Rupert Murdoch controls 20% of the news papers in the UK, and 60% in Australia). When we are constantly bombarded with certain news we are given the impression that a problem exists. Weather that problem is true or not we gain the perception that something needs to be done about it. We fall right into the hands of the people in control of the media. We are also given the impression of what others think. Reality be dammed here. The opposing opinion of the controlling entity (whoever owns the media) is going to ensure the opposing opinion presented is weak, non-existent, or otherwise illogical. We then go on to agree because we want to fit in and don't get the real opposing sides point of view. We want to be liked so we agree with the seemingly dominant opinion. This is the danger of censorship. We literally hand control over to a select few are are completely oblivious to it. We think we agree, but have no real way to form an honest opinion. Terrorism kills significantly fewer people than those in power. The US went to war and kill millions. Yet the terrorists only managed to kill a few thousand. Those in power can create significantly more harm than the opinions of the masses; "terrorists" or otherwise.

Children do not need protection from information. They need to be presented with as many different viewpoints and perspectives as possible including those of claimed "terrorists". You can't call them terrorists and expect to have an undirected and honest discussion. It's pre-designed to evoke outrage over whatever comes out of the mouth of the "terrorist". It wouldn't even matter if the "terrorist" was fighting for freedom. They'd just be marginalized some other way (think communists and religion, religion was claimed to be the root thing that differentiated communists from democracies, ie why 'under god' was added to the pledge of allegiance). Currently none of us are in a good position to make a decision on the “terrorists” because we aren't being presented with the "terrorists" view. The "terrorist" is also not of one view. There are many groups labelled "terrorist" with different causes they are fighting for. The real difference between the government(s) of the worlds actions and the "terrorists" atrocities are the labelling of each. The government's atrocities get called "collateral damage" (ie drones, etc) while the "terrorists" atrocities get called terrorism. Terrorism is merely the word for the buggie man (the unknown, it inspire fears).

By your actions you will be known

[Z00L00K]

By your actions you will be known, not by what you say.

The blocking of sites is nothing else than censorship, and instead of blocking the sites and tracing the active on those sites the only thing that happens is that the sites will move, become more extreme and still be accessible by the followers.

And by that I mean that by imposing censorship on the terrorists you actually become what the terrorists want you to become.

Terrorists and children do share some common treats - it's when it gets silent that something serious has happened or is going to happen.

One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting.
Salman Rushdie

Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.
Anna Quindlen

Positive feedback loop

[LookIntoTheFuture]

'Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas,'

Hasn't history taught us that preventing free speech creates fertile ground for extremism? Spread their nonsense with a megaphone so that sane people can try to explain to them what is wrong with it. Without proper feedback, the rage grows.

In the words of "V"

[Anonymous Coward]

V: Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

[carves "V" into poster on wall]

V: The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

A civics lesson for fat cunts

[Hognoxious]

To the submitter of the article, theodp, Hugh Pickens and other uninformed twats:

When there's an actual bill introduced in the House Of Commons, then and only then can you correctly say "UK Government wants to ...".

When some random politician is spouting off, you can't. It's a non-story. Just STFU already.

telegraph.co.uk, Mail.co.uk and sun.co.uk

[Anonymous Coward]

will disappear! Hooray! About time!

Re:telegraph.co.uk, Mail.co.uk and sun.co.uk

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone is cybersquatting on mail.co.uk

you mean dailymail.co.uk?

Goodbye UK!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the whole UK to be unsavoury. I can't wait until they remove themselves from the web so the rest of us can get on about our business without them.

I made it "go away" via hosts... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

By adding these 18 lines to my hosts file:

---

216.34.181.45 slashdot.org
216.34.181.45 beta.slashdot.org
216.34.181.46 images.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 it.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 developers.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 yro.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 mobile.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 news.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 ask.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 tech.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 apple.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 books.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 games.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 hardware.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 interviews.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 linux.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 science.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 idle.slashdot.org

---

* :)

(Easy as apple pie...)

APK

P.S.=> So - How to build a custom hosts file that keeps those favorites sites of yours @ the TOP of your hosts file (so it has speed, even if you have a large hosts file that makes the Windows faulty slower usermode dns clientside cache flake out since it's faulty with relatively larger hosts files - do the math, binary search type, which makes up for indexing up to ~ 3++ million hosts entries), for added speed (hardcodes = faster than remote dns lookup, along with the fact they can be EASILY dns redirect poisoned, ala the Kaminsky bug & MOST ISP level dns are unpatched vs. it, like 99%), added security (vs. known servers of malware, malicious script, or botnet C&C Servers etc.), added reliability (vs. downed or redirect poisoned DNS servers, including rogue/bogus DNS servers malware makers & botnet herders use), & even added anonymity (vs. dns request logs OR dnsbls)? Use this (by "yours truly") -> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit: http://start64.com/index.php?o...

US Presidency Crater Of Victory

[Anonymous Coward]

Hand in hand Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry today stand in the crater of the US Presidency as the Free Peoples of Crimea laugh at them and mock their impotence.

Come to America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like everyone just needs to just come over to the New World! America, home of the brave, land of the free, uh...dammit!

Linguistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting lesson. Not the OP, would not have known about UK structure. In US, "bureaucrat" is a personality trait than can be used to describe anyone, regardless of job title. Just indicates (generally negatively) a person who likes the rules and especially likes whatever power they can get by enforcing the rules, regardless of whether the effects are in any way sensible or positive.

This guy would fit our definition just fine. If he protested "but I'm an elected representative, with the power to actually make rules!" he'd pretty much be making our case for us.

Warning: unsavoury content

[DanielOom]

This posting contains unsavoury critcal content and should be blocked from UK readers.

Not their say.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't get to decide what is unsavory. I decide that for me and my family, and you should decide that for you and your family.

Sensorship.

[lbanting]

They are drawing a fine line here. Who knows what the government would consider as terrorist views now or later. Don't get me wrong, I have no use for extremists as they are describing, but how far will it go? Besides, is it not better to "monitor" these sites and possibly gather usefull intel rather than close them? Also it's just going to be like playing Whack-A-Mole. Whack one and two more pop up.

The usual fascist scum

[Anonymous Coward]

If things keep going south like this, we'll soon need to move to China for a better internet.

Re:Freedom Rings In Crimea

[Hognoxious]

Given that the options were:

1) Join Russia on Monday.
2) Join Russia on Tuesday

I'm curious to know what the other 5% voted for.

Decadent, Liberal, Zionist.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want people reading about all the paedophiles within the ranks of the treasonous excuse for a government.

Galileo

[Anonymous Coward]

Would Galileo’s theory of a round world have been considered unsavoury information ?