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

[RDW]

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

Re:Fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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 are ours.

Signed,

An American

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[dryeo]

Yes, looks like I misremembered.

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

[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?

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.

[Z00L00K]

Don't forget Max Headroom.

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.

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

[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

[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")

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.

[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.

[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.

[SuricouRaven]

You didn't get the joke.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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?

Re:Freedom of Speech/Expression

[nurb432]

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

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.

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]

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

[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).

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: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.

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?'

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...

[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

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.

Warning: unsavoury content

[DanielOom]

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

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.

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.