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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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

[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.

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: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:Freedom Rings In Crimea

[jedidiah]

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

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?'

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...