Piracy Police Chief Calls For State Interference To Stop Internet "Anarchy"

An anonymous reader writes The City of London Police's Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) is determined to continue its anti-piracy efforts in the years to come. However, the unit's head, Andy Fyfe, also believes that the government may have to tighten the rules on the Internet to stop people from breaking the law. PIPCU's chief believes the public has to be protected from criminals, including pirate site operators who take advantage of their trust. If that doesn't happen, then the Internet may descend into anarchy, he says, suggesting that the government may have to intervene to prevent this. The Police chief believes tighter rules may be needed to prevent people from breaking the law in the future. This could mean not everyone is allowed to launch a website, but that a license would be required, for example.

Comments

Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not police but more like a paid thugs or enforcers working for a group of corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Police??

[NotInHere]

Where is the (+1; Insightful Troll) mod?

Re: Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Alert 4 chan...these guys need pizza.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The title of this story should be: Pirates: It takes one to know one.

Re:Police??

[demachina]

It should be noted that the City of London is a tiny part of London, like a square mile. Its the financial district, the Wall Street of London.

It isn't suprising they are taking a pro big business stance.

Re:Police??

[NotInHere]

That tiny part has financed most of englands colonisation efforts. It has helped building a world empire. However, nowadays its weird to see such a relic in a country that calls itself democratic. Having a queen who stays out of politics isn't a big deal. An institution where companies can vote based on the number of their employees, thats in the press and uses titles like "police" is however. I don't object to companies to publish their opinions, but they shouldn't use titles that sound like they were part of the state. This clearly shows their position towards democracy.

I know other companies fuck democracy, too, but to some extent that can't be avoided as the line between "legitimate participation in public discussion" and "lobby government" is thin. Companies should just clearly state its them.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory CGP Grey link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc

Re:Police??

[_Shad0w_]

The City of London Police are a territorial police force though; they're all (well all of the full time and specials) are sworn constables.

Re:Police??

[ShanghaiBill]

They are not police but more like a paid thugs or enforcers working for a group of corporations.

Corporations have a legitimate interest in fighting piracy. It interferes with shipping, and endangers the crews. But it seems silly for the London Police to be involved. It would be more reasonable for anti-piracy to be handled by the Royal Navy, as part of a coordinated international effort. This could include arming merchant ships, providing convoy escorts, and/or retaliation against ports providing sanctuary to pirates.

Re:Police??

[DoofusOfDeath]

The City of London Police are a territorial police force though; they're all (well all of the full time and specials) are sworn constables.

My impression is that most policemen are ultimately deferential to those who pay them.

Re:Police??

[gl4ss]

well, of course, why else would they try to argue for government(police) to have to step in to stop crime, crime that's already illegal since it's a crime...

I mean, I don't fucking get the premise. Does the chief want more things to be illegal or does he want other governments(of other countries) to make more things illegal or does he want powers to declare anything he wants as illegal, not just things that are crimes now but anything his clients want?

Re:Police??

[fustakrakich]

"Democracy" is for other people...

God save the Queen!

Re:Police??

[AK Marc]

Like every city in the USA. I was born and grew up in Dallas. Which was "incorporated" (made into a corporation). There are small parts of land around the area that are unincorporated, but most land in and around every US city is a corporation. That you don't know what a corporation is doesn't change the fact that it's a term for a group of people (like a regular US city). It's just a little archaic, even if in common use continually for places like London and cities in the US, though they are called incorporated, rather than corporations. But that's the same thing.

Re:Police??

[mwvdlee]

As a territorial police force of sworn constables, are they responsible for proposing laws?
Because that's what they're doing here.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't change the reek of terminal-stage corruption though.

Re:Police??

[WillKemp]

That tiny part has financed most of englands colonisation efforts

Bullshit! Robbing the victims of colonisation is what financed it.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not police but more like a paid thugs or enforcers working for a group of corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

+1....

but haven't all gov agencies been either sold or farmed out to corporations?

Re:Police??

[rvw]

As a territorial police force of sworn constables, are they responsible for proposing laws?
Because that's what they're doing here.

Responsible for proposing laws? They are free to do so - whether you like it or not. Join a political party or some lobby group, whether it's "bad" corporate lobbying, or "good" NGO stuff, you can even start something yourself - and you can be part of the fun as well.

Re:Police??

[mwvdlee]

They are indeed free to do so just like you and me.
But it's not part of their job and they have no more legal standing to do so than you or I.
So in proposing laws they are NOT acting as a territorial police force of sworn constables, they are in fact acting as a corporate lobbying group.

City of London Police when enforcing laws = territorial police force of sworn constables.
City of London Police when proposing laws = corporate lobbying group.
It's important to distinguish these two roles and their difference.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, anyone can be free to propose laws. The problem here though, surely, is that they will be utilizing money raised through taxes to research / study / propose such laws.

Re:Police??

[marcello_dl]

Personally I'd wait to be retired before going public with suggestions done as a police officer. It is true that everybody can suggest laws, but those whose task is enforcing it should stay well damn separate. Separation of legislative, executive, judiciary power, do you remember?

Re:Police??

[cmdr_tofu]

Despite the horror I feel at the suggestion of requiring me to "get a license" to exercise 1st amendment rights, (what is the status of free speech in england?) I think the police are in a unique position to suggest laws for consideration by legislative branch. I mean the police might get 450 request per day, "please shut down this law-breaking website". I've also heard police Seattle police chief call for marijuana legalization, and it looks like he was heard, which I think probably means Seattle police can now be used more effectively.

What would the impact of requiring a license for 1st amendment activities be? In most cities, you already need a permit to hold a demonstration, and if you held a large showing of a copyrighted film without permission, that's not 1st amendment activity. To be fair to the police there is a lot of criminal activity on the Internet. Would central control of the internet through an authority like DNS make it easier to control?

While I am in favor of having a government with laws, regulations and police, I fear that trying to let governments control the Internet would threaten online creativity and deprive us of new developments with very little effect on Internet crime (as criminals already use compromised accounts and systems to do their dirty work) I am hopeful for a more decentralized Internet in the future.

Re:Police??

[Z00L00K]

There are civil masters and civil servants, but often the line becomes blurred and those that should be civil servants becomes civil masters.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

and/or retaliation against ports providing sanctuary to pirates

Hey now, leave port 6881 out of this.

Re:Police??

[flyneye]

Well, let's hear it for good ol' fashioned Anarchy.
Did he mean anarchy, as in the anarchy England descended into briefly in the 1800s, or Kropotkins Anarchy, or will it cause teens to become disaffected and wear black t-shirts with the @ and listen to "Bella Lugosi's Dead" over and over?
Perhaps the internet will only descend into Feudalism.
Stupid bastards! This is where your taxes go. Perhaps a revolution, followed by anarchy is getting to be more and more attractive...

Jarre is dead brilliant.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

The English hanged, drawn, and quartered people for fighting for civil liberties and freedom calling those high treason and crimes against English civilians. I suppose the war is over then unless we can do the same back to those basterds in CoL.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not bother with such nuances just stone them till they they are deemed unsuitable for political process.

Re:Police??

[NotDrWho]

As a territorial police force of sworn constables, are they responsible for proposing laws?

No, but if the UK's politicians are anything like their American counterparts, the politicians will use their statements to support the new laws--as in "See, the police are saying they NEED this authority, to protect us from the T E R R O R I S T S ! ! !"

Re:Police??

[Xest]

They're funded by the tax payer, corporate lobbying is not part of their mandate. Thus, the only capacity in which they should be doing this is a personal capacity, and not whilst making any use of the City of London Police name, facilities, or anything else.

But what's particularly offensive about the City of London police's anti-piracy efforts is that they spend a disproportionate amount of time and resources outside their square mile chasing it in other parts of the UK which are not their jurisdiction. This is even more concerning when you recognise that there are countless criminals undealt with in their square mile who have had far more damaging impacts on the global economy from libor riggers, to illegal use of investment funds, through to high class pickpockets raiding the bags of the rich in the area's restaurants and bars.

None of which would be a problem, if it weren't for the fact that when I asked if my local police force could priorities these City of London criminals who have done far more economic damage and send some of their officers to the City of London to deal with it just as the City of London sends their officers up here for economic crimes, I was eventually, after 3 months, told that the City of London police would prioritise these issues themselves and would not support our officers in doing so in their jurisdiction.

The real question should be why is anyone letting the City of London police operate outside their area of jurisdiction when they wont let anyone deal with the far bigger, far more damaging criminals in theirs.

Re: Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

dod somebody say...cheese pizza?

Re:Police??

[ajb673]

This gives an interesting take on free speech in the UK FindLaw UK

Re:Police??

[Archtech]

"In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'"
- Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love"

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would do a slight bit of reading you would find out that the incoporated municipal governments of many different nations/states/ etc allow for incorporated municipal governments but do not allow that for-profit corporations have voting rights which match and/or exceed that of the human residents of the incorporated municipalities.

The square mile ( ie the City of London municipal government not the Metropolitian London municipal government) is the only territiry in the UK that allows corporations the right to vote in municipal elections. It also grants the voting counts to be based on the number of employees a corporation a company has and allows that if a corporation does not have office space but uses a registered post office box inside the City of London that the corporation can still vote in the municipal election.

No person in the UK has the right to vote based on the size of their family. Nor does a person retain the right to vote based soley on the use of a postal box inside a municipal boundry.

  The square mile corporation voting rights is a hold over from centuries ago that should have abolished decades ago.

Re:Police??

[kheldan]

"Show us your papers, citizen!"
That's what that 'police chief' sounds like.

What is 'freedom of speech', Alex?

..yes, I know, Britain is not the U.S., but here we have yet again some yahoo public official that thinks they should be able to dictate to the rest of the world how the Internet is operated.

Re:Police??

[RockClimbingFool]

I mean this is basically Fascism, right? Corporations acting as though they are a state agency, with all the powers of investigation, arrest, etc?

Re:Police??

[cayenne8]

I saw this quote "

If that doesn't happen, then the Internet may descend into anarchy,

" and thought to myself, where has this guy been?

The internet started out as and has always been anarchy, and that is what made it good. It has been the last bastion of personal freedom and expression since inception. The lack of regulation and rules has made it what it is today.

The internet, was NOT created and constructed for the purpose of business and monetary transactions, that is something that came later and while welcome, was not and SHOULD not be the total focus of the network of networks.

Re:Police??

[Frobnicator]

You are right that they are operating outside their area, and they ought to be going after things inside their area.

But if they are going to go after infringement, let's have them start going after corporations that are engaged in wholesale copyright violations, not just individuals involved in it.

Sites like Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Upworthy, and other clickbait sites that take images from the little guys, use the images in their clickbaiting business, and profit from the copyright infringement. Just take a moment to search for the assorted sites, " stolen images". Buzzfeed and HuffPo are currently fighting many such lawsuits, yet they continue to use random images found online without permission and without compensation to the photographers.

It would be nice if the City of London police started by black holing those sites, too.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

THE CRIMSON
                                              PERMANENT ASSURANCE

                                                A tale of piracy
                                                on the high seas
                                                      of finance

                                                  London, England

In the bleak days of 1983, as England languished in the doldrums of
a ruinous monetarist policy, the good and loyal men of the
Permanent Assurance Company - a once-proud family firm recently
fallen an hard times - strained under the yoke of their oppressive
new corporate management...

Pushed beyond the bounds of decent and reasonable victimisation -
the aged retainers take their destiny in their own hands and...
MUTINY!

And so - the Crimson Permanent Assurance was launched upon the high
seas of international finance!

There it lay, the prize they sought - the richest jewel in the
crown of the IMF - a financial district swollen with multi-
nationals, conglomerates and fat, bloated merchant banks.

Hidden behind the faceless towering canyons of glass, the world of
high finance sat smug and self-satisfied as their future, in the
shape of their past, slipped silently through the streets -
returning to wreak a terrible revenge.

Adopting, adapting, and improving traditional business practices
the Permanent Assurance puts into motion an audacious and totally
unsuspected Take Over Bid.

And so, heartened by their initial success, the desperate and
reasonably violent men of the Permanent Assurance battled on,
until... as the sun set slowly in the west the outstanding return
on their bold business venture became apparent... the once proud
financial giants lay in ruins - their assets stripped - their
policies in tatters.

[They sing]

It's fun charter an accountant
And sail the wide accountan-cy,
To find, explore the funds offshore
And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy.

It can be manly in insurance:
We'll up your premium semi-annually,
It's all tax-deductible,
We're fairly incorruptible,
Sailing on the wide accountan-cy!

And so... they sailed off into the ledgers of history - one by one
the financial capitals of the world crumbling under the might of
their business acumen - or so it would have been... if certain
modern theories concerning the shape of the world had not proved to
be... disastrously wrong.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive me because I'm American, but no. It's not the job of the executive branch - police for example - to propose or write law. Not in America and I'm sure not in England either. It's their job to enforce it.

So no, they aren't "free to do so". They are free as citizens, in their personal off-work time, to propose laws and/or generally engage in politics, but certainly not as officials of any capacity whatsoever.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's literally none of the police's business, in USA or England.

There is no local, state, or federal law in America that a website could possibly break other than child porn laws. The laws which get violated on the internet are copyirght laws - they are not laws protecting States, they are laws protecting owners of intellectual property, and usually to an absurd extent under the most generic terms possible.

Re:Police??

[sudon't]

I wouldn't even say commercialization was welcome. At least, not by me. I see most of what the web has become as pollution. I had hoped the first internet bubble would be the end of it, and that these commercial interests would go away having realized that the internet was free. *sigh* I'm so naïve sometimes....

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Police have no business or jurisdiction on the net. They can go fuck themselves.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet started out as and has always been anarchy

Depends where you start. DARPA may seem like "anarchy" and it may seem like
there is no rhyme or reason to the military, but I don't think "started out" is quite how you imagine.

The internet is a surplus weapon from wars. Nowadays, it is cheap and being sold to school districts,
small towns, you name it.

In that sense, I can agree -- the internet has somewhat escaped. But whether that was intentional or
not...

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I said this, I got modded -1 never a +5 maybe there were some retards with mod points in that other thread.

Re:Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

As a territorial police force of sworn constables, are they responsible for proposing laws?
Because that's what they're doing here.

Responsible for proposing laws? They are free to do so - whether you like it or not. Join a political party or some lobby group, whether it's "bad" corporate lobbying, or "good" NGO stuff, you can even start something yourself - and you can be part of the fun as well.

They can suggest all they like, it's up to lawmakers to ultimately decide.

Re:Police??

[Polo]

I'm not sure, do you understand the City of London is not London?

Re:Police??

[NotInHere]

Yes, I know about that, even more: See http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

Still the comment is Insightful for me as it adds information TFA missed. (Maybe informative is better).

And a bit a troll as it compares them with thugs.

But +1 overall.

Re:Police??

[ihtoit]

think you'll find it's a dodge to collect taxes, since GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COLLECT TAXES OF ANY KIND DURING PEACETIME.

That is a holdover from Magna Carta. Incorporating a local, State or National Government to give it legal status puts it in the same type of entity as a for-profit company (as in, it can now contract). As such, it is thus legally entitled to collect taxes from those who make use of its services, however tangentially (passing through? Pay your road tax. Living here? Pay your rates. Use public utilities? Pay for them. Can't be done by a Government, can be done by an incorporated body with legal personality).

This is also why the Federal Reserve answers not to the US Government (even though on the face of it, it is a Government department, evidenced by the several recent sideways promotions between eg, the FBI, local and State police, the local legislature, the Treasury & IRS, and Capitol Hill), but to the five largest banks in Europe. Partly because it is then entitled to collect taxes via the IRS and consolidate through the Treasury, partly because it was the only way the United States could get its multitude of trade agreements with Europe ratified. The banks already held all the Aces and they refuse to deal directly with Governments (wouldn't you?).

Disclosure: I am a Lawyer. I am not your Lawyer. Seek advice from a Law Society member (of which I am not and never have been) should you feel the need.

Re:Police??

[ihtoit]

Oh, we're not talking about America now, right? :coughIRScoughFBIcoughTreasurycoughprivatearmiescough:

Re:Police??

[beastofburdon]

Yea, this one needs to exist, or maybe allow +1 or -1 with any of the tags.

Re:Police??

[Sciath]

Either you, Heinlein or both are (were) misguided anarchists. Heinlein's quote was merely for the benefit of his fiction readers. I'm confident of that. What's a "mature" society? A "mature" society I would assert is one that has advanced enough in civil discourse and action to recognize the innate worth of every human being and would not be based upon Spencerian social Darwinism. Secondly, the condemnation of "civil servants" as civil masters is nearly devoid of any validity. 90% of civil servants are themselves servants of life long bureaucrats, jurists and politicians. Servants have little say in how their jobs are defined and executed. Their merely taking orders just like every other "laborer" in the private market; everyone has a boss. Now one can argue over the validity of any/all government (civil service) programs, but don't blame the peons because shit rolls downhill. If you want to blame someone, blame Congress, and other state/local elected officials. In fact those very officials are themselves (supposedly) civil servants and have a lit to say about what and how programs operate. Finally, a job is a job. If there is a demand for certain products or services, someone has to perform certain duties. The demand wouldn't be there if your elected officials had not seen fit to authorize them. And usually that stems from them perceiving a need. Just like when a private company perceives a need for a certain product. You obviously have no first hand experience with how government and its services work.

Re:Police??

[HornWumpus]

Start with a broken definition and you waste your time.

Re:Police??

[Sciath]

I'd hate to see what your definition of a "mature" society is.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

just. lol. No other word for it.

Re:lol

[DivineKnight]

Agreed. The man has zero understanding of how the internet works...he might as well have said "let's all meet together on Sunday with our flying rainbow pegasuses." And it's painfully obvious...to the point where I am running out of facepalms for this year...I just can't handle the stupid. Obnoxious third-parties spitballing bad ideas at hundreds of miles per hour starts to add up...IT doesn't get paid to do their own job anymore, let alone put up with this political shit.

The next time some moron gets up to talk about 'fixing duh Interwebs,' I vote we trap 'em in a room with a router, with their release contingent upon successfully configuring it. I'll even be kind and leave the manual in there so they'll have something to read.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you haven't got your flying rainbow Pegasus yet? Man, I knew things were backwards over there... Must be the result of Dubya's stance on stem cell and genetics research :)

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

They will create jobs on both sides of the law for tech people over oversightable future. See the opportunity and earn some buxxx...

How about protecting the public

[crioca]

How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

There is alrady a mechanism in place for that. It is called a VOTE.
Although people are complaining all the time about the government, hardly anyone here is ready to get their ass up and go vote when they are able to vote.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

There is alrady a mechanism in place for that. It is called a VOTE. Although people are complaining all the time about the government, hardly anyone here is ready to get their ass up and go vote when they are able to vote.

Yeah that's great! As a wonderful right I get for being a citizen I get to make my very own choice. My options are: Candidate A that got there because of lobbyists and funding and will be friendly to corporate interests ... or Candidate B that ... got there because of lobbyists and funding and will be friendly to corporate interests BUT uses different rhetoric.

Wow. This is truly an awesome and definitely not-broken mechanism. Of course! Your belief in this system is definitely not baseless and naive. At all.

If the sheeple ever get a clue and figure out how rigged this game really is and fucking WAKE UP from their hypnotic zombie groupthink daze, maybe they can write-in somebody who takes no money. Till then, best of luck to you.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then. Revolution it is.

Re:How about protecting the public

[cold fjord]

How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?

Applause >

Re:How about protecting the public

[DoofusOfDeath]

Well then. Revolution it is.

It would be a horrible civil war, at least in the U.S. The citizenry is so divided on so many issues, that I believe the battles would continue long after the federal government was overthrown.

Re:How about protecting the public

[MrKaos]

How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?

Applause >

They will never.ever.ever.ever.stop.never

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think there has been any successful insurrection against an elected government that resulted in revolutionary upheavals and changes in a nation's political and social system. That doesn't mean a popular uprising is an invalid response to a barbaric ad oppressive regime.

Re:How about protecting the public

[durin]

Oh ffs. Why is this modded funny and not insightful?

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

If the sheeple ever get a clue and figure out how rigged this game really is and fucking WAKE UP from their hypnotic zombie groupthink daze, maybe they can write-in somebody who takes no money.

It's always the same rhetoric, the defeatist attitude blaming the faceless "sheeple" masses because they dont care about whatever comparably trivial thing you're so emotionally invested in but too lazy and incompetent to do anything about.

Of course you're so englightened, you dont need to "wake up", you see everything for what it is but everybody else is just mindless sheeple. Whatever excuses you make for yourself that help you sleep at night.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Opportunist]

What good is your right to vote if your choice is between a corporate shill and someone depending on handouts from corporations?

You may vote who you want in power, but they get to choose the pool of people you may vote for.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that's great! As a wonderful right I get for being a citizen I get to make my very own choice. My options are: Candidate A that got there because of lobbyists and funding and will be friendly to corporate interests ... or Candidate B that ... got there because of lobbyists and funding and will be friendly to corporate interests BUT uses different rhetoric.

Vote for C and convince enough other people to vote for C.

But I bet you aren't willing to spend the time required to make a difference.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Bert64]

The people complaining do tend to vote for someone other than the main parties, it just doesn't achieve anything.
The vast majority don't understand whats going on and dont want to, they believe what they hear on mass media, and those media outlets are controlled by the main parties.

Without power your voice will never be loud enough for the masses to hear it.
Without a loud voice, you will never get enough votes and thus no power.

The current system is simply designed to maintain the status quo, while giving the false impression that people have any say in the matter.

Re:How about protecting the public

[AK Marc]

There is alrady a mechanism in place for that. It is called a VOTE.

Great, so how do I vote against the police chief of London City?

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

Ukraine?

Re:How about protecting the public

[Keyboard Rage]

Oh, come on. There's precedence for this, and all it takes is the intervention of an misinformed outside heavily armed army force to solve things. Just look at Afghanistan. Cesspool of internally battling militias becomes fairly pacified economically bankrupt democratic country. We just have to find a country willing to save the United States of America. My votes go to Russia, France, and Canada.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're writing-in the people you vote for you're also part of the problem. You're a sheeple too. At the very least more candidates getting votes means the companies have to spend more to by their laws. The greater the money and amount of people it''s going to, the more likely the chance of a major fuck up and with luck it'll be in most people's favor. It's a long shot, but it's the one we got.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be several smaller countries, not a big one.

Re: How about protecting the public

[mSparks43]

An Internet revolution.

And it's happening every day.

And idiots like this Fife character and the small clique of people he represents are loosing.

Which is why he's understandably upset.

Never mind. Just laugh at them and get on with building a brave new world without them.

Re: How about protecting the public

[mSparks43]

Next they'll be voting on bombing the Internet to kill the 4chan terrorists.

Re:How about protecting the public

[mythix]

why is this modded funny?

in a "it's funny cuz it's true" type of sense?

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is your right to vote if your choice is between a corporate shill and someone depending on handouts from corporations?

You may vote who you want in power, but they get to choose the pool of people you may vote for.

Yeah, corporations have a Buffalo Bill attitude towards politicians: "pay them all, let the voters sort them out" and "the only good politician is a greased politician". So far, there are no reservates for the surviving non-corrupt politians, but then they are more like a mythical beast in modern life, anyway.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

There is alrady a mechanism in place for that. It is called a VOTE.
Although people are complaining all the time about the government, hardly anyone here is ready to get their ass up and go vote when they are able to vote.

Not fair for us normal people because one rich person vote is worth at least +5 Insightful.

Captcha: firearm

You guys trying to tell me something Slashdot?

Re:How about protecting the public

[aaaaaaargh!]

I've come to think about this a lot recently, as I'm currently writing a science fiction novel that plays in the near future after the US has been torn apart by a civil war. (BTW, I'm writing in German, so it is unlikely that any American will ever read it.)

With modern sattelite surveilance, DNA sampling, automated biometric scanning, fighting robots, and the total information awareness of the federal government, I find it increasingly improbable that any (legitimate or illegitimate) freedom fighters/rebels/terrorists could stand a chance against the whole power of the federal miltary apparatus in a high tech country like the USA. Drone strikes alone would probably eliminate most of the resistance very quickly, no matter how many small handguns they have, and social network analysis would allow them to decapitate the leadership of the movement in targeted assassinations. This is one of the reasons I'm personally against surveillance and advocate privacy, because I find it hard to imagine a democracy that could never ever turn into a totalitarian oligarchy or dictatorship by an unfortunate sequence of events. There should always be a balance of power between the people and the force of the state.

The only scenario I find credible and that is perhaps not so unlikely is that large parts of the army and national guard would split off and join the resistance movement and at the same time the rebel controlled territory has plenty of high tech weapons manufacturing companies, too. EasySurface to air missiles and anti-tank weapons would be crucial. Anyway, without a halfway even division of the professional military force, a modern civil war in the US would not last long.

Re:How about protecting the public

[dargaud]

The only scenario I find credible and that is perhaps not so unlikely is that large parts of the army and national guard would split off and join the resistance [...]

Which is basically also the only way that any rebellion/revolution has managed to succeed in the past.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual it's mostly your contry that is fucked like that..
From Wikipedia: Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany, some have a functional two-party system such as the United States of America, and some nations are one party states, such as China.

Re:How about protecting the public

[serviscope_minor]

Great, so how do I vote against the police chief of London City?

Start a large corporation. That is literally the way to get voted on the City.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Well, I know France and Russia were key in supporting the American independence movement which overthrew the British government, so there is some historic precedent for those two at least :)

Not sure what Canada's history with the US is in this sphere, but I think at the time they were still a British colony.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil war? Well, at least you'd be guaranteed a win.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to work on Switzerland, at least up to a degree.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. Vote for people who will reduce the power of government. If they don't, keep recalling the bastards until a replacement does. They'll eventually get the message. Corporations can't vote. So they can't "sway" the election more than we allow them to.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Ol Olsoc]

That would be the "Losers and Hosers Doctrine"?

Re:How about protecting the public

[u38cg]

Get your party elected to the Court of Common Council.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Ol Olsoc]

Simple. Vote for people who will reduce the power of government. If they don't, keep recalling the bastards until a replacement does. They'll eventually get the message. Corporations can't vote. So they can't "sway" the election more than we allow them to.

So, tell me who this mythical candidate is who wants to be elected but wants to not have power?

The US at least has one party that for years has fed citizens that Alice in Wonderland type contradiction.

"Elect us, because we hate power and government. We want to minimize both".

And it's worked out so well.........

Re:How about protecting the public

[TangoMargarine]

France or Canada, sure. Russia? You really trust Russia to overthrow the government and then just pack up and go home, these days?

Re:How about protecting the public

[TangoMargarine]

numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany

Yeah, because that never goes wrong.

Believe me, I am all for having a viable third party. Having a democracy with problems is hardly limited to the U.S., though. Maybe we're just the most glaring example of it.

Re:How about protecting the public

[TangoMargarine]

So, tell me who this mythical candidate is who wants to be elected but wants to not have power?

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
"To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
  - Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re:How about protecting the public

[Opportunist]

Such a candidate would need money. Where does he get it from? Either he already has it (which means more likely than not that he depends on the well being of corporations for his money supply to keep running) or he needs to become yet another corporate whore.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Opportunist]

Reduce the power of government? Are you high? In this time and age, REDUCE the power of government?

Power is never absent. And as soon as someone relinquishes it, someone else will take it. Now take a guess who would instantly step up and become the powerful entity in the absence of laws.

If you guessed "the people", guess again...

Re:How about protecting the public

[Opportunist]

Oh, of all the examples, why did you take Germany?

Sure, they have a few parties to choose from. Shall we take a look around?

CDU/CSU: The "moderate right" choice. In case you enjoy big business, erosion of privacy and what's left of the figment of imagination of a social system.
FDP: What USED to be the choice if you enjoy big business, erosion of privacy and what's left of the figment of imagination of a social system. But why bother with them anymore now?
SPD: The Heisenberg party, it really depends whether they have the limelight. When it's being in opposition, it's very left leaning and remembers that the S is for "social". When they get to govern, they instantly turn into a CDU/CSU lookalike.
Greens: A party that entertains itself, its voters and the rest with fringe group issues, from homosexuals to feminists. Unless someone makes a mistake and lets them take the helm, then they're instantly selling out to whoever offers them a comfy ministry position.
PDS: The old East Germany commies. Rather funny to look at with a really awesome top dog. Well, if you consider him a comedian, not really anything you'd want in the government of a country.

But hey, you have the free choice between a corporate shill, a tiny corporate shill, a corporate shill that disguises as your buddy, a corporate shill that is fully on your side unless someone makes a better offer and the comedy group formerly known as SED.

Re:How about protecting the public

[CaptSlaq]

Ukraine?

To say that was an "insurrection" I believe is patently false. That KGB guy that Russia has as their pres has fingers ALL OVER that situation.

Re: How about protecting the public

[CaptSlaq]

some might say that carpet bombing 4chan's servers until they buckle might be doing the intarwebz a favor.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

The storming of the Bastille went practically unopposed because even way back then the military were revulsed at the idea of butchering their fellow citizens. The mililtary/paramilitary are exactly where you have to aim a large part of your propaganda (for want of a better word).

Re:How about protecting the public

[UnknownSoldier]

/oblg.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Alternative Vote Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Gerrymandering Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

From:
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize like 95% of the military in our country is ready to join the revolutionary cause in a heartbeat as soon as a legitimate leader and revolution presents itself to lead them. Ron Paul had all of the backing of the military for his presidency, for example. Many of them have made it very clear that they won't follow any orders telling them to harm American citizens. Many mroe of them are on retainder as part of their enlistment even after their terminal leave, who will definitely do the same.

The only people in the military who would actually stay on the governments side in a revolution are the pathetic fucks who joined to be GI Joe, and somehow still don't comprehend the true meaning of their oaths. I know a marine like that, and have heard from many others.

You can't drone strike the resistance if you don't have people qualified to use the Xbox controllers that drive them. Same goes for all military equipment and I highly doubt you wouldl convince any American to launch a nuke on their own country either. As far as tech goes, you can shoot down drones with a shotgun. It has been done multiple times already to the drones already flying over our country. Not to mention the possibility of developing or getting ahold of an EMP device, or supermagnets, or tons of other methods of countering technology. And robots? Please. The military doesn't have any serviceable robots and won't for decades. The closest thing right now are those MGS looking dogbots used as packmules - they make a sound like an orgasming banshee when they walk and can be easily knocked over and destroyed.

And really, small handguns? I'm going to just assume you're not American, and don't actually know anything about our country.

Re:How about protecting the public

[CrimsonAvenger]

Drone strikes alone would probably eliminate most of the resistance very quickly, no matter how many small handguns they have,

One should note that if every handgun owner were to target member of the military, as long as the failure rate is not more then 98% or so, the US Military would run out of soldiers before the civilians ran out of handguns.

And this ignores that not every soldier would go along with fighting against American civilians....

Re:How about protecting the public

[kaatochacha]

The First US president did a fairly good job of it

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been plenty of them, you just haven't read history properly. Usually they are sponsored by first-world nations.

Re:How about protecting the public

[currently_awake]

This isn't a modern change of affairs. History is filled with the common man rising up against the corrupt noble/lord/king and his professional army. The only times the common man won was when the army was divided AND they had substantial support from some of the rich and powerful.

Re:How about protecting the public

[ihtoit]

Afghanistan isn't economically bankrupt, they supply 90% of the world's opium - guarded by the US Army, the sweetest smelling army in the world.

Somewhere around I have a graph charting the flow of opium (actually, it's yields). From the mid-80's to 2001 it was on a steady decline, then it zeroed, then between 2002 and 2010 it rapidly became the single most cultivated crop in the region, beating everything else combined. Including oil and lithium output.

Re:How about protecting the public

[ihtoit]

Caesar was felled by a dagger.

Just saying.

Re:How about protecting the public

[HornWumpus]

Funny, when America was fighting in Vietnam 90% of the worlds opium supposedly came from there. (specifically Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam).

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me, the revolution that happened in Kiev was real. It was a huge mass of civilians collectively protesting against the _really_ out of control government, then getting constantly, and brutally, besieged by armed special forces (we're not talking riot police and rubber bullets here, we're talking e.g. snipers) for months on end. But instead of backing down, they organized themselves to a very impressive level and reinforced their defenses, and kept up the fight until their dictator fled the country and didn't come back.

It was the first, genuine, 21st century revolution we've witnessed, and the movement itself was successful as its primary motive was to make Yanukovich GTFO. Sadly, it also proved something we've already known: many (or most) revolutions, after successfully overthrowing a government, fail to ensure a better replacement and thus often end up worsening things drastically.

This is not always the case, but I believe it will be much more so in the 21st century, where large and fast-moving organisations (of all kinds) can very effectively take advantage of a suddenly leaderless state, especially one whose people are in stupor and disarray after finally achieving what they were fighting for. I'm sure a hell of a lot people were so ecstatic from the chance to *finally* set up a democratic election that they pretty much assumed the result has to be and can only be better. And then boom, Poroshenko.

thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

for the laugh

Old Man Doesn't Understand Computer Networks

[Anonymous Coward]

For more breaking news, please tune in to our regular 7pm broadcast.

Anarchy???

[_Sharp'r_]

The Internet has already descended into Anarchy.

That's why we like it. The rules are made by the people who own/run/create/manage it, by mutual agreement, not enforced from the top down. If people don't agree, they go their separate ways, because you can't be forced to allow someone on your network if they violate your network's rules.

The Internet is fine. We like it how it is. No need for more government regulation to ruin it on behalf of those with influence with government officials/politicians/bureaucrats.

Re:Anarchy???

[fabioalcor]

The Internet has already descended into Anarchy.

It has not descended, it was born as an Anarchy. Internet is anarchic by design. That's the way it always was, is, and must be.
A computer net with strict rules is not internet, it's something else.

Re:Anarchy???

[sbjornda]

The Internet has already descended into Anarchy.

You beat me to it. I was going to respond, "YOU'RE TOO LATE!!!!!"

--
.nosig

Re:Anarchy???

[fustakrakich]

AT&T and its various global counterparts own the pipe. The entire thing is being tapped and tracked. There will be no "anarchy" on the internet until that changes.

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

>The Internet has already descended into Anarchy.

LOL Big telcos control every single millimeter of the fiber and copper that make up the Internet and will happily do whatever they're told when presented a court order. The only reason the Internet is "anarchy" is because no-one has gotten around to putting the bootheel on its neck yet. I don't expect that happy state of affairs to last much longer.

Re:Anarchy???

[amiga3D]

If he thinks the web is anarchic he should try IRC. That's wild west type anarchy. I used to hang out in #amiga_warez on Galaxynet back in the day before I even had a web browser. I remeber one of the early ISPs in town had IRC listed in their brochure as exactly that, the wild west of the internet. The brochure stated that if you didn't like getting attacked to stay away. Interesting and fun times before full comercialization of the internet. Now this cocksucker wants to license web sites. I hope his asshole grows shut.

Re:Anarchy???

[hey!]

Somebody forwarded me an article the other day about how we should all switch to dairy from grass fed cows. Now many of the points in the piece I happen to agree with, but one of the claims was that grass-fed dairy has fewer "toxins". Whenever I see "toxins" used without further specification as to what exactly the "toxin" is, that's a signal that someone's trying to sell something expensive but useless -- which turned out to be the case. The piece was hawking stuff you were supposed to mix into your grass-fed milk, which is a good way to expose yourself to toxins given how weakly regulated supplements are.

People use ideas like "law and order" in just the same way as marketers use "toxins". It's all well and good to say you're going to stop people from breaking the law on the Internet, but what specifically are you proposing to do? Set up an anti-fraud unit? I'll cheer you on. Monitor everyone's email? That cure's worse than the disease.

But I also have to say that the word "freedom" is just as subject to misuse -- or in this case "anarchy". Now there are many things about anarchy I like. There are others I don't. I don't like having to remove malware off my wife's computer. I don't like having to be vigilant that my older relatives aren't taken in by Internet scammers. I don't like having to deal with attacks on my websites. Even government agencies poking around in your Internet data -- that could be seen as a case of the agency exploiting a specific lack of Internet regulation.

I'm all for reducing my exposure to toxins, but I'm not going to get colon irrigated. I'm for cracking down on Internet crime, but not at the expense of the government doing things that *ought* to be criminalized. I'm for freedom, but not the freedom to interfere with other people's freedom. It's really not that complicated. Find out the specifics of what people are proposing to do, even when their stated goal sounds reasonable.

Re:Anarchy???

[DivineKnight]

He's a police officer...he doesn't understand any kind of design other than an Authoritarian hierarchy. You can tell him how the internet works, and he won't believe you...or he'll look at the DNS servers, see the hierarchy there, and claim that it is hierarchical after all. He's spent his entire life fighting against 'Anarchy' (watchword), and he'll be damned if he'll let it exist once he's discovered a 'nest' of it.

He's off in his own little world, fighting a war against tilting windmills...

Re:Anarchy???

[Zontar The Mindless]

What do you mean, "descended" into anarchy? It fucking started that way.

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: *Risen* into anarchy ...

Re:Anarchy???

[Opportunist]

Well... almost, but not quite. In its actuality, the internet is a collection of a lot of tiny absolute dictatorships. With the main difference being that you can easily start your own if you're not happy with any of the other ones. With blackjack and hookers if you so please.

The difference to reality is that it is trivial to vote with your boots if you don't like the dictatorship you're under. So those tinpot dictators have to be civil if they want to have any citizens. But, in the end, the word of the owner of the board, webpage or whatever else he may run is still law in his tiny corner of the planet.

The only threat to freedom in this setup is when such a tinpot dictator is getting too much power, i.e. when it becomes near mandatory to live under his rules. For reference, see Facebook.

Re:Anarchy???

[drinkypoo]

It has not descended, it was born as an Anarchy. Internet is anarchic by design.

The internet != TCP/IP.

TCP/IP was designed to be peer-to-peer, and assumed that you could trust your directly connected peers to behave themselves. There's your anarchy. But the internet depends upon things like IP allocation and name resolution, which are the opposite of anarchic.

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

... He's off in his own little world ...

So are you. He wasn't attacking the internet at all. He was attacking people: Specifically their ability to have e-mail, Skype, online banking, online shopping, online education, government services on-line. He is essentially demanding that movies pirates be turned into non-persons. This was attempted in Australia: Corporation to corporation. City of London Corporation has the advantage of direct access to the ministry of Justice.

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't like facebook so I won't be looking back again. To my, and others total surprise my life goes on happily without facebook! Can you imagine that? Now, do you you have any examples of mandatory dictators?

Re:Anarchy???

[Doghouse13]

Um. You mean "Tilting against windmills". It was Don Quixote who was doing the tilting, not the windmills.

(To "tilt", in this context, is an archaic verb meaning to joust with a lance. Knights on horseback, and all that.)

Re:Anarchy???

[Doghouse13]

Um. You mean "Tilting against windmills". It was Don Quixote who was doing the tilting, not the windmills.

(To "tilt", in this context, is an archaic verb meaning to joust with a lance. Knights on horseback, and all that.)

"Tilting AT windmills". Darn it. First rule of internet pedantry - any pedantic post will inevitably contain at least one howling error that isn't spotted until the post has been irretrievably committed....

Re: Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

It may have been that way at the beginning but there are now very few players in the ISP business and a handful of internet "giants". Once they sit down and decide how to slice the pie, it's over. As for darknets, using them and any strong encryption only singles you out. Once you've gone through "answering a few questions" at the local police station, you'll stop believing you're V.

Re:Anarchy???

[lisaparratt]

Funny, lots of little dictatorships sounds a lot like the practical implementation of anarchy to me...

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy is also a collection of absolute dictatorships, 1 per participant

Re:Anarchy???

[itzly]

You beat me to it. I was going to respond, "YOU'RE TOO LATE!!!!!"

Yes, but you were too late.

Re:Anarchy???

[cmdr_tofu]

I think specifically they want to have a discussion, but one of the ideas proposed was to exploit the centralized nature of DNS to require people to get licenses before they could have a "website" (presumably each website would have it's own domain name so foo.com/~user1 and foo.com/~user2 would all fall under foo.com's license or something)

Re:Anarchy???

[oobayly]

Also known as Muphry's Law.

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet does depend on IP resolution and routing protocols, but not name resolution. You could create your own name to IP map and it would work just fine. Look at TOR. You could also forgo the use of names and just use IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

DNS is sugar.

Re:Anarchy???

[Andrewkov]

Yes, and when he says "anarchy", he's misspelling "free".

Re:Anarchy???

[TangoMargarine]

I think specifically they want to have a discussion

See, I can only see this going downhill from there. If "talks" start, the result will inevitably some sort of legislation the people (yes, the U.K., but I'm sure U.S. legislatures are creaming themselves over the idea of ~precedent) don't want getting rammed down their throats.

I really love this* SOPA/PIPA repeat stuff they keep trying every so often.
"Are you sure you won't let us--just a little bit over here--"
"NO"
"Okay, we'll come back in another 6 months when you're in a better mood."

* yes, yes, not this

Re:Anarchy???

[Opportunist]

Well, technically correct. With maybe the difference that you can (more or less voluntarily) subject yourself to the rule of such a dictator (by deciding that you want to use his offered resources).

This is, btw, also why I can't really side with anyone screaming "censorship" if some server owner decides to limit or eliminate certain speech (in word, picture or otherwise) on his server. It's not censorship. That "dictator" has no governmental power over you. There is nothing that keeps you from voicing your opinion on YOUR server. Technically that "censorship" is nothing but me telling you to get the fuck out of my house when you start spewing some religious bullshit.

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my best friends was unhorsed by a windmill. :(

Re:Anarchy???

[Anonymous Coward]

I never opened a facebook account. I think you're some kind of dumb faggot. You remind me of my ex wife. She is just now starting to realize the guys she has been fucking are players that will lie to her. Meanwhile, I've learned to be the player. She continues to not heed my advice about these guys. They're all "so much better than the last." The newest one from this weekend is quite comical. I pointed out all of the signs. But, nope, I'm wrong.

At least I don't lie to my girlfriends about love or trick them into keeping themselves exclusive to me. The black men my ex goes for do both. They should be hung.

Re:Anarchy???

[Matheus]

You have provided us with an excellent example of the problem you describe. That being the Wiki link provided is to the wrong Wiki page. I'll go right ahead and presume my text is rife with flaws. I'm comfortable with that.

Muphrey's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Re:Anarchy???

[oobayly]

Brilliant - I normally check the links, but this time I *assumed* I'd copied and pasted it correctly,

Here it comes

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking pigs.

What a fool

[chromaexcursion]

Pay a fee for a license?
This idiot lives in the UK. Obviously totally clueless.
I though US lawmakers were stupid. This toad is a dumb cop from a different country. Gives new meaning to stupid.

I suspect this story won't get much more press, this guy is up there with Sarah Palin for intelligence.

Re:What a fool

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention: How are you going to enforce this?

Let's assume that this guy somehow is successful and starting tomorrow, everyone in the UK needs to obtain a license before starting a website.

First, they would need to define "a website." Is a Facebook page a website? A Twitter feed? A Google+ page. People can those just like any WordPress blog. What if you're starting a new web service that you hope to go commercial with at some point. Do you need to apply for a license before you can publish one line of HTML code?

After this would come the big problems: Namely, how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators? If I were living in the UK and opened an account with a US hosting firm, using a domain registrar located outside of the UK, how could the UK authorities tell that I was the one behind the website? Registrars have privacy settings that enable you to hide your WHOIS address and I doubt many non-UK registrars would bother with UK police calling them up demanding the personal information of their clients. Same goes for those non-UK hosting providers.

I almost want them to try instituting a "create a website license" just to see it crash and burn. Almost. In reality, I realize that they wouldn't attempt to apply it 100% but would simply use it to either add a charge onto someone whose online opinions they don't like or to silence critics. (You want to speak out against us? What a coincidence, your website license has mysteriously been revoked. You have a week to shut down your blog.)

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, with all these SEDO parking crap sites that will be a nice additional source of income for the government....

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK thinks differently than the US when it comes to freedom of information. For example, a citizen of the UK may only listen to radio frequencies the transmitter authorized them to listen to (ie: Police scanners are illegal to use). A UK TV broadcaster can expect only those willing to pay a fee to UK government media to watch, even if they are anti-government.

Don't kid yourself that the UK hasn't already considered this.

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this story won't get much more press, this guy is up there with Sarah Palin for intelligence.

Probably not that smart, more like Joe Biden. Sara Palin was laughed at for saying a lot of things that have been coming true.

Re:What a fool

[amiga3D]

If he were only a bit more ignorant he could be as fucking stupid as Nancy Pelosi.

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay a fee for a license?

Seemed to work fine for TV... oh wait. Thank god I'm Canadian.

Re:What a fool

[cold fjord]

The US affordable care act was a mere 2,000 pages long and is spawning tens or hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations governing, regulating, taxing, and reshaping American healthcare. Next to that the development of regulation to govern all aspects of the internet, world wide web, and its many manifestations is peanuts. It will probably be about as successful as the "Affordable" Care Act, AKA Obamacare, but it can be done none the less. That should suggest to you that nobody should give them the idea of actually do it if we want to avoid a fiasco.

Re:What a fool

[Zontar The Mindless]

He sounds like he works for Putin.

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply require a passport or driving license to register any domain name. They don't care about individual Facebook pages, they would just go after Facebook directly if someone uploaded pirate films to Facebook, because Facebook has money and that is what this is all about.

Re:What a fool

[Zontar The Mindless]

Sara Palin was laughed at for saying a lot of things that have been coming true.

Such as...?

Re:What a fool

[Calydor]

how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators?

By catching them red-handed.

Re:What a fool

[BitterOak]

Simply require a passport or driving license to register any domain name.

Believe it or not, there do exist domain name registrars outside the UK. They could certainly require this for anyone using the .uk TLD, but why would pirates do that when they could just buy a .com from GoDaddy or someone else in the US or elsewhere?

Re:What a fool

[Keyboard Rage]

Namely, how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators?

Simple. You can catch them red-handed by looking at the color of their website. Be it pink, burgundy, or, indeed, rouge, you'll find them all by that easy visual clue.

I believe the word you're looking for is "rogue".

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Police scanners are pretty useless though, since the police encrypt their communications.

Re:What a fool

[91degrees]

To be fair, he's not a legislator. He's identifying a (perceived) problem, and suggesting a possible fix.

It's up to politiians to come up with a fix. He's offering a starting point.

Re:What a fool

[Ash-Fox]

Seemed to work fine for TV... oh wait. Thank god I'm Canadian.

It worked fine in the U.S. too, they decided to add technical measures to enforce it in later years by moving those pay channels to cable and still introduce adverts regardless.

I know little how this was approached in Canada though, care to share?

Re:What a fool

[3.5 stripes]

Russia being belligerent, and invading the US via Alaska..

oh, wait.

Re:What a fool

[Ash-Fox]

You will find that police dispatch radio systems aren't standardized in the UK too.

Re:What a fool

[Ash-Fox]

Believe it or not, there do exist domain name registrars outside the UK. They could certainly require this for anyone using the .uk TLD, but why would pirates do that when they could just buy a .com from GoDaddy or someone else in the US or elsewhere?

A while back, register.com would require proof of identity after you paid for the domain registration and gave you a very short time period if you lived outside of the US. I don't know if they still continue this practice.

Re:What a fool

[tibit]

2,000 pages long

Maybe if you insist on reading it on a cellphone :/

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of several dynamic dns providers as well as IP based addressing; magnet links can be passed around via any text-based messaging method; as other more posters have commented there's also IRC and NNTP.

I suspect from text of the the interview with Andy Fyfe that he's been on the internet all summer.

Re:What a fool

[Jason Levine]

Yup. And that's what you get when you rely on spell-check too much and your mistype is a real word so spell-check doesn't flag it. I thought it might be wrong, but spell-check said it was fine so I let it go.

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Same way, but the stations are required to dedicate a certain amount of time to (generally) tax funded Canadian content, rather than deciding based on what Canadians want to watch as US stations attempt to do.

Re:What a fool

[shortscruffydave]

You will find that police dispatch radio systems aren't standardized in the UK too.

Yes they are - the Airwave system has been in use across all UK police forces for a number of years

Re:What a fool

[Ash-Fox]

Yes they are - the Airwave system has been in use across all UK police forces for a number of years

I live in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) currently and I can tell you for certain that not all the police use TETRA Airwave there.

Re:What a fool

[Whibla]

how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators?

By catching them red-handed.

I bet they'll be red-faced when you do, too...

Re:What a fool

[TangoMargarine]

Hey, they're already paying a TV license for the BBC, right?

Re:What a fool

[TangoMargarine]

Namely, how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators?

ROGUE! Not the color red in French!

Re:What a fool

[TangoMargarine]

Even a stopped clock...

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay a fee for a license?

When a domain name is registered in my country, the central telecommunications agency gets its payment, along certain guarantees of behaviour usually complied by the company performing the actual DNS service. I have no idea how the British are doing it currently, but there doesn't appear to be a much of a leap in thinking anyway.

Re: What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin would not tolerate such gross ignorance and incompetence among his minions.

Re: What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

he hasn't identified any fixes. he's just pointing his fingers and thumping his chest while screaming "Internet bad, Internet breeds terrorism, Internet must be controlled so my kids r safe"

Re:What a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means you're a fucking moron that doesn't have a basic grasp of the English language. I bet you're under 30, aren't you?

You also wrote two run-on sentences above. Spell-check is a tool to catch typos. It doesn't make up for idiocy. Look at how people use "a lot" and "allot". I mean, what the fuck? Some people even make up a word and use "alot". My spell-check even shits on "alot", but morons like yourself will write it anyway.

They don't teach children like they used to.

I have an idea

[viperidaenz]

Change the law to make what everyone does anyway legal.

Re:I have an idea

[kangsterizer]

That sounds way too sane. If everyone does it, its normal.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone does it, its normal.

The entire basis of Psychology, right here.

Re:I have an idea

[viperidaenz]

I know... what about the whole "The government works for the people"
Way too sane.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1. Change the law to make what everyone does anyway, illegal.
Step 2. Profit!?

Captcha: despots
lol

People of Great Britain...

[Sooner Boomer]

...remember, you are not citizens, you are subjects if the Crown! You will be treated as such!

Re: People of Great Britain...

[O('_')O_Bush]

Yea, CLASSIC U.K. gov't fearmongering and freedom abuse.

Next step will be a media propaganda campaign supporting only the government's point of view while the legislation is drafted such that by the time it goes to Parliament, the sheep public will be 100% on board.

Same thing happened with the porn filter.

Who does this benefit

[EmperorOfCanada]

Does this benefit the population at large or does this benefit corrupt officials and the large corporations that corrupted them?

It could be worse

[jtara]

At least they didn't hire Barney.

Re:It could be worse

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they didn't hire Barney.

Actually, it sort of sounds like they did.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license

The UK wants to become China?

Obligatory

[Areyoukiddingme]

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

And... the Internet shall descend into Anarchy! With a capital Anarchy!

The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[curmudgeon99]

That is certainly rich. The "City of London" is a lawless square mile in the center of London that is not subject to the laws of England. It is the center of all the tax evasion secrecy jurisdictions around the world. If you think of the rampant and lawless tax evasion that goes on in places such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey, they are all directed from this cesspool of lawless behavior known as the City of London.
For context I direct you to the magnificent book by Nicholas Shaxton called Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens . But don't stop there. Further evidence of the vile and lawless damage the City of London does to the world:

• The tax haven in the heart of Britain
• City banks ‘cheat’ Europe in €600m tax avoidance trading scheme
• How Tax Havens Stole Your Money
• The Missing $20 Trillion

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

Treasure Islands is one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read.

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[TheMathemagician]

You missed out the Freemasons, Rothschilds and giant shape-shifting lizards. It's depressing that you've been modded Insightful. The City of London is subject to the same laws as the rest of England and is not a tax haven.

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and the Isle of Man isn't a Channel Island, it's in the Irish sea.

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Peter Simpson]

That is certainly rich. The "City of London" is a lawless square mile in the center of London that is not subject to the laws of England. It is the center of all the tax evasion secrecy jurisdictions around the world. If you think of the rampant and lawless tax evasion that goes on in places such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey, they are all directed from this cesspool of lawless behavior known as the City of London.

Oh, no...you see you don't understand...it's not a crime when *we* do it!

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

The city of London is not subject to the same laws as the rest of England. It has at least three special rights granted to the City of London by parliment.

1) In no other jurisdiction in the UK ( England is a part of the UK ) do corporation have the right to vote in municipal elections. The City of London allows corporations to vote in municipal elections.

2) In no jurisdiction in the UK does a person have more than one vote as based on their family size. The City of London allows that the number of votes a corporation has is based upon the employee count of the corporation.

3) In no jurisdiction in the UK can a human have only a post office box inside the voting boundries and be considered a valid voter. The City of London has the right to allow corporations with no presence in the municipal boundries other than a post office box to vote in municipal elections.

4) The City of London has a special officer in parliment whom is not considered a lobbiest even though the activities of the special officer are sometimes presented a "reminding the members of parliment of the rights granted to the City of London and it's voting members" oh and those rights were granted centuries ago.

5) It is not a tax haven by definition ... because it has greater input and in some degree a bit of control of the corporate (specifically finacial industry ) tax rates in the UK than any other municipal jurisdiction.

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah, and the NSA could never spy on the entire world.

Re: The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

actually somebody already proved that they do not follow the same laws as the citizens. this was already discussed. your spreading bullshit

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

I laugh at how thoroughly this guy just schooled your ignorant, conspiracy-kook accusing ass. The Rothschild family factually is involved and guilty of everything it's been accused of. Anyone who can understand English can follow the research and figure it out. You probably think the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a government controlled bank, too, don't you?

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[curmudgeon99]

The City of London is indeed the heart of tax evasion. It directs tax evasion around the world.
You are absolutely a liar. I direct you to this Guardian story that explicitly states that as a fact.
You ridiculous comments about the Freemasons, etc is subterfuge trying to hide with disinformation the precise fact that the City of London is a world center of lawless scumbaggery and its apologists like you are the worst sort on the planet.

To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century In David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy
Quote: But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control.

Further evidence: The tax haven in the heart of Britain

"What they sell is escape: from the laws, rules and taxes of jurisdictions elsewhere, usually with secrecy as their prime offering. The notion of elsewhere (hence the term "offshore") is central. The Cayman Islands' tax and secrecy laws are not designed for the benefit of the 50,000-odd Caymanians, but help wealthy people and corporations, mostly in the US and Europe, get around the rules of their own democratic societies. The outcome is one set of rules for a rich elite and another for the rest of us."

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Archtech]

" I direct you to this Guardian story that explicitly states that as a fact".

Wow. The Guardian! Well, that certainly is an impeccable source. It's not as if the Guardian has ever got its facts wrong, still less deliberately distorted or suppressed facts it didn't like.

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[TheMathemagician]

(1)-(3) just amount to the Corporation of London (the City council) having a different system of voting to other city councils (which are based on personal residency). As the City's resident population is about 7,000 but 300,000 work there, and it's the most important area in the country financially, the system of giving companies a vote makes some sense. Would it really be democratic for a handful of low income voters (several population areas in the City are social housing for those on benefits) to make the rules for the economic heart of the UK? (4) So what? Parliament has numerous special advisers (Spads) paid from public funds who carry out party political activities. Far more disgraceful IMO. (5) Of course the City has political input into to the tax process but they still pay the same taxes as everyone else.

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[TheMathemagician]

The Guardian is the biggest tax dodger in the UK as it's owned by an off-shore trust precisely to avoid paying tax.

I wonder...

[reemul]

Any relation to Barney Fife? He shows the same keen understanding of the law and uncanny insight into what police work is all about. He simply will not tolerate online anarchy; he intends to nip it, nip it in the bud.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, I expect Sheriff Andy won't give him permission to put his bullet in his gun just for this.

Re:I wonder...

[amiga3D]

He'd just shoot his foot.

City of London Police

[Jason Levine]

I'm not an expert on the UK by any stretch of the imagination, but I seem to recall that the City of London Police are a small force that are responsible for a small section of London. They are mostly known for making outrageous statements about expanding police powers.

Can someone with more UK knowledge clarify the "City of London Police" situation?

Re:City of London Police

[SuricouRaven]

For historical reasons, the CoL is semi-independant. It got a charter back when the country was still under the rule of kings, many centuries ago. It's unusual in being overtly governed by corporate interests, which has lead to some accusations that CoLP are a bit too close to those who pay their wages.

CoLP are responsible for regular stop-the-mugger policing in the area, but their main activities are in the type crime that comes from being a financial district. Fraud and financial crime. They also devote a great deal of effort to intellectual property crime, often working in conjunction with police forces elsewhere in the country to catch importers of counterfeit goods as well as their somewhat-infamous devotion to stopping copyright infringement.

Re:City of London Police

[Xest]

Just Google Maps City of London then zoom out a little for perspective and you'll see how ridiculously small it actually is.

Re:City of London Police

[Anonymous Coward]

The City of London police are a small force with an extensive reach outside of the own municpal boundries, in particular because for the longest while there was no national police force or investigative body existed in England and because the CoL police has extremely well funded speciallized departments that few municipal police have anywhere else in the UK.

The City of London police have taken action against internationally hosted websites by issuing threatening letters while having no legally valid jurisdiction.

The following is from wikipedia .... and most of this information can be also discovered on the CoL police force website

The police authority is the Common Council of the City, and unlike other territorial forces in England and Wales there is not an elected commissioner replacing that police authority by way of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

The City Police is organised into five Basic Command Units:

        Economic Crime Directorate
        Crime Directorate
        Uniformed Policing Directorate
        Information and Intelligence Directorate
        Corporate Services Directorate

Because of the City's role as a world financial centre, the City of London Police has developed a great deal of expertise in dealing with fraud and "is the acknowledged lead force within the UK for economic crime investigation." The Economic Crime Directorate includes:

        Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU)
        Overseas anti-corruption Unit (OACU)
        Insurance Fraud Department (IFED)
        National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB)
        Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU)

Re:City of London Police

[Anonymous Coward]

For historical reasons, the CoL is semi-independant. It got a charter back when the country was still under the rule of kings, many centuries ago.

So its US equivalent would be Texas. Lucky you. You have a mini-Texas in your country, constantly throwing their bottle out of their crib. We, on the other hand, have Texas, and we've reached the point where we just don't give them back their bottle.

It's unusual in being overtly governed by corporate interests

There's nothing unusual about that. In the US, we call that "Tuesday". Look at the latest FCC debacle. Not unusual at all.

Fraud and financial crime.

A rich guy did it? No. This kind of crime doesn't exist.

counterfeit goods

"Counterfeit" goods crack me up. So there's a t-shirt with a famous designer's logo on the front. And the sweat-shop that they contracted out to in Bangladesh made an over-run to be able to fulfill the order. So instead of wasting the over-run, they sell it and get called a "counterfeiter". What they're actually doing is not being a wasteful, resource-hungry, planet-destroying piece of shit that the "intellectual property" owner wants them to be. Way to hate the entire planet and everyone that lives on it, City of London Police.

Fortunately...

[msobkow]

Fortunately bozos like this doofus only have jurisdiction over a couple of square miles of land, not the entire global internet.

Wanker.

Re:Fortunately...

[rasmusbr]

Fortunately bozos like this doofus only have jurisdiction over a couple of square miles of land, not the entire global internet.

Wanker.

This guy has jurisdiction over more than 1/10 of the planet's land area: http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Note the part about forcing .ru websites to have their servers in Russia where they can be shut down at the discretion of the leader. I suspect this will first be condemned by western countries, then copied.

Re: Fortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

he has no such authority.

see his employer...

[Voyager529]

Consider the division of the police force with which he works. His section sees computer crimes day in, day out. He is tasked enforcing computer laws for the city of London (i.e. not metro area, so he's likely dealing with financial crimes "on the internet" and similar), which is a rather tall order...and I sincerely doubt he's particularly concerned about Joe sixpack getting a movie off the pirate bay.
We can laugh about how out of touch he is and how ludicrous it is to suggest a website license, but it's also a reasonable fear that the same infrastructure keeping the pirate bay resilient to the *AA's could as easily be used for worse things that could have a more profound effect on the economy of the region.

Re:see his employer...

[ktetch-pirate]

Nope, bang on wrong. He's the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit - a unit of the CoL police, funded with a few million from the movie industry, to 'work on copyright issues nationally', and the CoL cops got it because theyre 'the lead cops for fraud nationwide'. Just to clear up, its not quite like the US,where the forces are limited to geographical restrictions, certain squads and units are 'national' in usage.

Re:see his employer...

[Anonymous Coward]

> with a few million from the movie industry

In other words, conservative Republican USian money. The Repukians can't keep their hands out of other countries. They're like three year-olds with a two year-old's mind. They stumble around and smash things. Now that they rule here, expect this sort of thing to spread to the rest of the country. Projecting Hollywood's power is just the first step in their plans to kill all of us.

Re:see his employer...

[Keyboard Rage]

Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit

PIPCU? Sounds like an insult coming from 4chan.

Andy Fyfe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope I'm not the only one that finds it funny there's a police chief named Andy Fyfe.

"He's a nut."

just wow

[ihtoit]

um... can we start with protecting ourselves against the Government?

They steal our children. Provable fact. (3500 children of foreign nationals stolen for financial gain since 2005 - that they've admitted to, and I hold the evidence).
They abduct people and incarcerate them when they complain about the way they were treated in state-run children's homes. Also a provable fact (Melanie Shaw, Robert Green, Jack Frost, to name but three).
They murder their own. Also a provable fact (Dr. John Kelly).
They cover paedophiles in their own ranks. Also a provable fact (A number greater than zero (as documented in the public domain) of Members of Parliament have criminal records for sexual offences against children).

Re:just wow

[Microlith]

So.... any links to back this stuff up?

Re:just wow

[ihtoit]

my report to evidence the first point: https://www.academia.edu/57099...

The rest is but a websearch away.

Re:just wow

[Microlith]

The rest is but a websearch away.

I hate this shitty mentality, but apparently it's worldwide. No, I'm not going to go searching to dig up evidence for whatever wild claims you choose to make, you need to present it then and there.

Re:just wow

[ihtoit]

Melanie Shaw: all over the news. Robert Green: front page of ukcolumn.org. Jack Frost: jailed for saying hello to his own daughter, hit the news, wrote the book "The Gulag of the Family Courts". Dr. Kelly: died suddenly of a previously undiagnosed congenital heart defect (aged nearly 70!?) after exposing the Iraq Dossier as a big fat lie (sorry, said John Kelly, means to say David Kelly, so many names floating around...). The final point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... is ongoing and growing in scope and scale on a DAILY BASIS.

What's really scarry

[future assassin]

is that this guy in his head thinks this will work. How the fuck would a sane adult even come up with this and then state it publicaly. We all know no crime happens tto any business that has a license and there are no crooked/illegal buisnesses in the uninternet world.

Re:What's really scarry

[DivineKnight]

The less you know, the easier it is to fantasize the implementation.

Which reminds me. NASA, what's taking you so long to colonize Venus? It's right there! Have it done by next Tuesday, or I'm going to vote to have your budget slashed.

Re:What's really scarry

[gweihir]

Look at the history of humanity. It is full of utter scum that think that other people's actions have to be controlled to the max "for their own good". The term "Police State" is not an accident. Religion and some more advanced forms of Totalitarianism even try to tell people what they are allowed to think.

Dear PIPCU

[spiritplumber]

no. signed, the internet.

Oh no, days of downloading movies are over!

[SlovakWakko]

What a neat trick! Now nobody will be able to create a pirate web site... on a server located in the City of London. Wow, we're all screwed.

Re:Oh no, days of downloading movies are over!

[SuricouRaven]

PIPCU has a very flexible idea of jurisdiction. It extends at least as far as Canada.

Re:Oh no, days of downloading movies are over!

[Keyboard Rage]

...and the Moon.

TF

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot the TF trolling shit news site reposter

Up north

[Engeekneer]

Oh Scotland. You had a chance to get away from this madness. You should have taken it. Maybe it would have encouraged others to follow and eventually left a small insignificant cluster of insanity.

Re:Up north

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Republicans in the USA threatened violence so the people in Scotland caved and voted the way the bullies forced them to. McCain was serious when he mentioned using nuclear weapons. That is the way of his kind. They love violence and killing of the poor. They don't consider us human. People like him are the reason there is no hope for the USA with the streets flooded with CIA guns and drugs or for Scotland that is now ruled by asswipes in England because of McCain.

Re:Up north

[Ash-Fox]

Oh Scotland. You had a chance to get away from this madness.

Scotland isn't governed by the City of London, nor is London governed by the City of London either. Scotland is governed by the Scottish Parliament, then the UK parliament (where Scotland has a powerful voice) and then the European Union (where nobody but undemocratically selected people have absurd amount of powers - The 'no' voters still wanted to be part of the EU mind you).

Re:Up north

[Engeekneer]

Oh Scotland. You had a chance to get away from this madness.

Scotland isn't governed by the City of London, nor is London governed by the City of London either. Scotland is governed by the Scottish Parliament, then the UK parliament (where Scotland has a powerful voice) and then the European Union (where nobody but undemocratically selected people have absurd amount of powers - The 'no' voters still wanted to be part of the EU mind you).

Sure, that's a given. But England in general seems to be really tripping when it comes to internet regulation, both local and national scale. Disassociating from this whole madness, even if it doesn't directly affect them, seems like a good idea.

As for EU, I have a bit different view on it, but at least they seem to have a good view on end-user rights, and actively try to act in their interests. Not in all cases of course, but in many.

Re:Up north

[Ash-Fox]

Sure, that's a given. But England in general seems to be really tripping when it comes to internet regulation

I'm more alarmed about the double standard internet regulations, policies and double speak the EU is doing at the moment. The filtering of some websites on some select ISPs through rulings (piracy sites) and child filters that again, are on some select ISPs which aren't even an actual law isn't really something a UK citizen as myself is really concerned about compared to what the EU is legislating.

Licence? Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

This could mean not everyone is allowed to launch a website, but that a license would be required, for example.

Yeah, coz that works so well for things like cars. How often do police pull over drivers at RBTs, for example, who are (a) driving on a suspended licence, or (b) have never held a licence at all.

Re:Talk About "Nanny State"

[MrKaos]

What has the UK become with regulations and "attitudes" of law enforcement & government officials like this?

The City of London is different from London City. City of London is more like a Chamber of Commerce that started over a thousand years ago

OK then

[real gumby]

So Mr Fyfe, ban what you like within the Square Mile. That should make you popular with the banks!

Security force owned by a corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the security force owned by the City of London corporation, exactly as you said, they're known for taking UK law and re-interpreting them to expand them. Then they threaten and bully to institute the laws by misrepresenting their powers.

Normally they would be subject to sanctions, but this is the City of London and it desperately needs to be brought back within the UK, and back within democratic controls.

Quite literally in this little square miles CORPORATIONS *ARE* PEOPLE. The corps vote like they are people, and the City of London police are their enforcement arm, giving the corporations police powers.

Re:Security force owned by a corporation

[Animats]

Quite literally in this little square miles CORPORATIONS *ARE* PEOPLE. The corps vote like they are people, and the City of London police are their enforcement arm, giving the corporations police powers.

That's quite correct, and not an exaggeration. The "City of London" (now a tiny part of London) has a governmental structure left over from the Middle Ages. (It was codified in 1189AD, but is older than that.) It's one of the few holdovers from the feudal era that hasn't been modernized. The City of London Police should have been absorbed into the Metropolitan Police decades ago, but haven't been.

Re:Security force owned by a corporation

[Ash-Fox]

Normally they would be subject to sanctions, but this is the City of London and it desperately needs to be brought back within the UK, and back within democratic controls.

The City of London is older than the UK. The City of London was given plenty of special exemptions for agreeing to join England and accept the king freely. The city of London also has plenty of democratic controls, to the point that people that work and/OR lives in the City of London can get a vote on policies (provided EU/UK national etc).

Quite literally in this little square miles CORPORATIONS *ARE* PEOPLE

Corporations don't vote, they can only appoint voters from their own company - Said person also can't be forced by the company or others to vote a certain way. Of course, in doing so, they would lose their ability to vote in local elections (if they live in the City of London).

Re:Security force owned by a corporation

[Ash-Fox]

The "City of London" (now a tiny part of London)

The City of London is not part of London. If you look at a map of London, there is a hole that is not London in it, where the City of London is. Just because you can walk from London into the City of London doesn't make it part of it. It doesn't even have the same city hall, mayor etc.

Re:Security force owned by a corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't familiar with reality, are you? Not on speaking terms with it?

1
a (1) : one of the often indefinite or unequal subdivisions into which something is or is regarded as divided and which together constitute the whole (2) : an essential portion or integral element

The City of London is in the middle of the city of London. It occupies, physically, the same land adjacent on all sides to London. It uses the same roads, and the same utilities. It's a part of London.

By your logic, taking out a piece of a completed puzzle, covering it in a colored marker, and then putting it back would make that piece of the puzzle separate from the rest of the entire puzzle around it, just because you put some marker on it. The CoL doesn't even have that.

Re:Security force owned by a corporation

[Ash-Fox]

You aren't familiar with reality, are you?

Yeah, I have no idea what I'm talking about. It's not like I've actually worked in London and the City of London and I'm not sitting in a hotel right now in the City of London (yes, I took that just now, just for you. You may recognise the famous Lloyd's Building in that picture on the left side), oh wait.

It uses the same roads

What does this even mean? There are villages that use the same roads as towns, that doesn't make them part of that town.

the same utilities

Actually, the service departments are separated from London? But even if it weren't, it's still considered a separate 'entity' in culture, history, legality and geography.

By your logic, taking out a piece of a completed puzzle, covering it in a colored marker, and then putting it back would make that piece of the puzzle separate from the rest of the entire puzzle around it

By your logic, it must be part of America because America is connected by the same planet.

Toxins

[Anonymous Coward]

You do too believe in toxins. It's implicit in your post.
What toxins! What toxins you say?
Answer: too many vitamins!

its Compuserve

[cheekyboy]

AOL or Compuserve it is then.

Please, every time someone says something like

[Anonymous Coward]

this, do your civic duty and brain them with a screwdriver. Thank you.

fyfe?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Fyfe or Fife?

http://forums.androidcentral.com/attachments/samsung-galaxy-s3/63271d1363369114t-random-social-chit-chat-barney-fife.jpg

Barney F*fe is quite amusing in America as being extremely incompetent and a danger to anyone around him when tries to do , well, anything..

Governors

[CaptQuark]

I think he feels he isn't getting enough cooperation from "main companies" so he wants more control on who can use the internet. Want to use the internet? Get a license. Want to create a web page? Get a license. Want to buy something on the internet? Want to download something? Want to copy from a site? He wants more control to be sure only legal uses are allowed.

It's almost like the speed limits on the highways aren't enough, he wants government-controlled speed governors installed in all cars.

“There may well come a time when government decides it’s had enough and it’s not getting enough help from those main companies that control the way we use the internet – they’re not getting enough help from them, so they’re going to start imposing regulations, imposing a code of conduct about the way people may be allowed to operated on the internet,” Fife says.

~~

Re:Governors

[Snowdog]

I think he feels he isn't getting enough cooperation from "main companies" so he wants more control on who can use the internet. Want to use the internet? Get a license. Want to create a web page? Get a license. Want to buy something on the internet? Want to download something? Want to copy from a site? He wants more control to be sure only profitable uses are allowed.

FTFY.

Re:Governors

[Anonymous Coward]

imposing regulations, imposing a code of conduct about the way people may be allowed to operated on the internet

Hey. We have one of those already. It's called the netiquette.

I bet this guy is oblivious of it and keeps top-posting with his followups to newsgroups.

OMG!!!! Rapidswitch

[whoever57]

I realized that I have a Virtual Private server that is hosted in the City of London. There must be countless others.

Imagine the things that they could be used for. Perhaps even watching UK television "catch-up" services. Or, actually running a website in this idiot's own turf. OMG. What should I do?

Rules and freedoms

[jandersen]

This is where I always get so depressed. Not because some police chief wants more rules, but because of the way hordes of slashdotters once again start to spout shallow drivel about what they call "freedom" in an attempt to sound "deep".

First things first, though: when they talk about new rules and regulations, it is not because they imagine that everybody will suddenly be law-abiding, it is because it is not possible to prosecute people for breaking non-existent laws. That is why have sometimes seen people not being brought to justice for what everybody agrees were crimes: there was no law governing what they did. Why have the bank executives that brought about the financial crisis not been put in jail? Because their crimes were not covered by law. This is part of the price we pay for living in a society where the law protects us from random arrests etc.

Next, those who are shouting the loudest about grand principles are also the ones who are least likely to actually know what they are talking about. Anybody, who actually thinks about freedom, will know that freedom is self-limiting. If there were no rules, the strongest bullies will grab as much as they can for themselves and impose their will on others - and that's all the freedom you will ever see.

All in all, instead of talking immature nonsense, go out and take part in the democratic debate - that is where we try to reach the compromises that all laws and rules must be.

Re:Rules and freedoms

[Keyboard Rage]

All in all, instead of talking immature nonsense, go out and take part in the democratic debate - that is where we try to reach the compromises that all laws and rules must be.

This is the Land of a Ten Thousands CCTV Cameras we're talking about. Nothing democratic in that.

Re:Rules and freedoms

[Anonymous Coward]

... will know that freedom is self-limiting ...

You're equating freedom with anarchy. One can say "freedom" and mean 'the government must protect this choice' instead of 'no-one is allowed to stop me'. We have various phrases for describing how actions of the individual are limited by a hierarchical social group : Most popular is 'the social contract'.

Re:Rules and freedoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa! Slow down there Tonto.

If the web sites in question are doing something illegal then we already have laws under which the perpetrators can be prosecuted. So selling drugs, Ponzi schemes, sorry Investment Banks etc. are already illegal and we have laws under which people can be prosecuted, possibly found guilty and sentenced. So we do not need a whole new set of legislation to make it illegal to sell hard drugs via the internet etc.

Just because it is done on a computer, via the web does not make it legal.

Why were bankers not jailed - good question and one which the attorney general needs to answer. I lend the bank the money I earn each month, for which I get 0% interest at the moment, and in return I get not a lot really. Now if you Mr Banker wish to speculate you had better ensure that should I decide to take my money elsewhere, in the form of cash, gold bars whatever, that I can. If you cannot guarantee that for all you customers at 1 second notice 24, 7, 365, then you are effectively running an illegal operation. This is the crime that the bankers were (and probably still are) guilty of. Note that I do not care that you have lent my money to someone else and therefore need some time to recover it - that is not with whom I have a contract. It is my money!

Some of us don take part in the democratic debate to the extent that we are allowed. So we belong to protest groups, we argue with politicians,and we vote every time. But we do not have the option of voting for 'None of the above' - as in I don't trust any of you enough. If this was an option and enough people voted for it we could show the politicians that they need to go away and think again and don't come back until you can convince enough people. I note that Belgium managed to go 18 months without a government and nothing bad happened to them.

Re:Rules and freedoms

[trippin_efnet]

First things first, though: when they talk about new rules and regulations, it is not because they imagine that everybody will suddenly be law-abiding, it is because it is not possible to prosecute people for breaking non-existent laws.

I'm pretty sure it is already illegal to 'pirate' movies in most western countries. One of the many problems I think a lot of people are struggling with here is, his proposed solution has too many negative side effects. It has too broad of a negative impact on law abiding individuals and very little real world positive outcomes. For example, most technically minded people can see that a criminal would just setup a website on a server in a country that has more to worry about than whether or not someone paid to watch the new Transformers movie. So, what is the next new law we'll need to pass after a website license?

We can pass these nickle and dime laws for the next hundred years and 'criminals' are still going to find a way around them. Often, the end result from passing laws to inconvenience a criminal doesn't do much other than inconvenience law abiding people, waste time, and waste money.

It does however make for a good headline and make it at least appear like they're attempting to make a real difference, even though it has no long term measurable positive effect.

Re:Rules and freedoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Their crimes were definitely covered by existing law, in America anyway. Maybe you haven't heard of embezzlement? Tax evasion? Etc.?

And your assessment of freedom is asinine. That's not self-limit, not in America. All American freedoms are governed by an explicit self-limit, otherwise exercising your freedom irresponsibly becomes illegal. I assume you don't live in the same world as everyone else because the law, despite that it's supposed to, actually doesn't protect people from random arrest anymore. Police can and will always manufacture a legitimate pretense for search, seizure, harassment, and arrest - in America, at least.

Quickly! Stop the information!

[Tyr07]

Oh that's fantastic.

Hey bob, it seems these people are able to spread information and when people in power do shitty things, they have ways to let everyone know
without us being able to quickly arrest them and stop it.

Better control that shit now. Oh hey look, people are downloaded content illegally. Uh..we need to..stop internet piracy...from...causing anarchy...and stuff...and only people we say can have websites.
Get fucked.

What's next? The USA finds out the internet has oil and decides it needs freedom?

Re:Quickly! Stop the information!

[Keyboard Rage]

What's next? The USA finds out the internet has oil and decides it needs freedom?

Operation Internet Liberation, ahoy!

Re:Quickly! Stop the information!

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom? No, in case there's oil, the internet would need 'democracy', i.e. the act of turning it into a cat litterbox.

Re:Talk About "Nanny State"

[AK Marc]

Cities in the US are "incorporated" (turned into corporations). So I fail to see how the City of London Corporation is different than any city government in the US.

Nobody has given a difference here, other than "it has "corporation" in the name!!!!1!1!!"

Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

ON top of that they are also damn clueless. I mean.. "then the Internet may descend into anarchy" the whole shebang started as an anarchy, and it's working really well so far. Also.. "This could mean not everyone is allowed to launch a website, but that a license would be required, for example" is just really hilarious. If I run apache on my computer I'm now breaking the law? What if I run it on another port? What if I don't reply to queries with valid html? Where is the line between a website and not a website? I mean, browsers support ftp sites. Some other programs could support NOT_www_sites. Why are the people making decisions always so FUCKING clueless. Is being goddamn stupid a requirement if you want to appear strong willed and capable of making decisions. Heck, I guess it is, since if you stop to think things you can't make decisions.

Reality check

[prsephton]

This one highly opinionated fellow, all on his own, wants to change the rules of the Internet??? Even if, by some miracle, he managed to change the IP laws of one country, what about all the others? The height of arrogance IMHO.

So, then...

[Chris Mattern]

He's against Anarchy in the UK, then?

Re:So, then...

[Chas]

He's against Anarchy in the UK, then?

Right! now
ha ha ha ha ha...

I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I wanna destroy passerby

'Cause I wanna be Anarchy
No dogsbody

Anarchy for the UK
It's coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop at traffic line
Your future dream is a sharpie's scheme

'Cause I wanna be Anarchy
In the city

How many ways to get what you want
I use the best
I use the rest
I use the N.M.E
I use Anarchy

'Cause I wanna be Anarchy
It's the only way to be

Is this the M.P.L.A or
Is this the U.D.A or
Is this the I.R.A
I thought it was the UK
Or just another country
Another council tenancy

I wanna be Anarchy
And I wanna be Anarchy
(Oh what a name)
And I wanna be anarchist
I get pissed, destroy!

Re:So, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, good one.

Ha! no where ?

[Anonymous Coward]

We do not have any anarchy here apart from in politics, secret services, and police and it is high time that this is stopped.

Re: Talk About "Nanny State"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's different in that almost every law in Britain has special clauses especially for it. In many real ways the law doesn't apply to it the way it does to any other city or corporation in the UK.

Re: Talk About "Nanny State"

[Anonymous Coward]

It almost sounds like you're suggesting a base for wealth and power that exists outside the law.

Re:Talk About "Nanny State"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not different at all, US cities did that because they brought the practice from England. Indeed many other cities in the UK also have "corporation" in their formal names.

Re:Talk About "Nanny State"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it doesn't have to follow the laws of England, for one. It's like it's own tiny little fascist Randian paradise leeching money out of the rest of the UK. Corporations get votes based on number of employees and if you aren't one, go fuck yourself.

 

WTF? BAD summary!

[oneandoneis2]

Seriously, I RTFA, AND the link on TFA to the original source. The guy just says he wants to open up a debate about how much policing of the Internet there should be. Where the FUCK did "get a license for a website" come from??? This isn't even a biased summary, it's flat-out misrepresentation. Get this shit off Slashdot.

London has a PIRACY police?

[argStyopa]

Why aren't they off the coast of Somalia, doing something about it?
Oh, wait, you're talking about trademark and copyright violations? Well, that's not piracy, is it?

We should just start calling jaywalking "murder". It's about the same level of hyperbole.

Twins

[dcw3]

I saw the name Fyfe, and couldn't help but correlate it to Barney Fife. Two of a kind.

Well funded well manned

[koan]

The Israeli cartel strikes again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

“A freedom of information request requesting the contents of the list and whether it contains technology from the controversial[36] advertising company Phorm was refused under section 30:[37]”

http://www.cityoflondon.police...

“PIPCU has now been running for over six months and has gone from strength to strength. The unit is a 21 strong-team consisting of detectives, police staff investigators, analysts, researchers, an education officer and a media and communications officer. The team also benefits from the skills and expertise of two secondees; a Senior Intelligence Officer from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and an Internet Investigator from the British Recorded Music Industry (BPI).http://

protecting Auntie Beeb's pie...

[Thud457]

Anglicize (Andy Taylor + Barney Fife) = Andy Fyfe ?
Except more like the guy that insisted on flipping the switch to shutdown the illegal phantasm containment system in Ghostbusters.

Don't trust pirate sites?

[GameboyRMH]

Then you really won't like legal media which includes DRM which will make the user experience vastly more frustrating than it would be for a pirate, and/or online authentication servers that usually go down at some point in the future, rendering your purchase useless.

Here We Go Again

[JimSadler]

A thinly designed tax issued for supposed public safety reasons that will extract money from the public and acomplish nothing at all. This works about as well as the concept of bail bonds and the need to hire defence lawyers. A crook or thief gets arrested and suddenly society creates a massive expense for him. So what's a criminal to do? Well they ramp up on their crimes in order to revover the bail money and pay their lawyers. And the cop shop and the judges know full well what goes on. The simple solution is to allow no bails and have a speedy trial. The second part is that all lawyers should be assigned by the state and paid for with tax dollars. That way the rich and the poor should get the same level of legal help. Now repeat after me : We can not do anything due to some belief or doctrine. The fact that the current system does not work well at all must be ignored. And the tax payers do not mind paying for the carnage that follows including overwhelming numbers of people in jails and prisons. Therefore we see absurd situations such as OJ Simpson being locked up for a nonsense crime in Nevada when just maybe he should have been locked up for his wife's murder. Then again if she was having an affair with Ron Goldman perhaps they deserved what they got. In years gone by murdering an adulterous wife and her lover was acceptable behavior.

"may descend into anarchy?" - unclear on concept

[jsepeta]

the internet _is_ anarchy, following only the rules of TCP/IP and DNS. i wish the jackbooted thugs of government would just STFU and do something useful for a change.

Internet Chief

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm calling for explicit consent before anyone is allowed to demand licenses. The internet needs to save the physical world from descending into authoritarianism!

First the Stamp Tax and Now This

[the eric conspiracy]

Seriously don't these people know any history? The main problem with the stamp tax is that it is imposed on newspapermen and lawyers, who are the last folks you want to get riled up against you.

This is simply another imposition on the primary means of communication in the world today. And predictably news channels are already getting their panties in a twist over it.

Re:Talk About "Nanny State"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note:

1) Corporations do not have the right to vote in municipal elections in any other jurisdictions of the UK ( nor the US - just helping get that arguement out of the way ) ; but the CoL allows corporations to vote in municipal elections.

2) No UK nor US municipal election allows a person to have more than one vote based on the size of their family; but the CoL allows corporation to have more than one vote based on the corporation's employee count.

3) No municpal election in the UK nor US allows the only physical presence of a person to be a post office box ( not even the CoL grants this right to people); but corporations are allowed to vote in the CoL municipal elections based solely on a post office box being the corporation's only physical presence in the CoL boundries.

This always cracks me up!

[s.petry]

Having a queen who stays out of politics isn't a big deal.

Sure, in public she and the other so called 'blue bloods' stay out of politics but why on earth would you believe they stay completely out of politics? No, none of them will stand in parliament and debate, but thanks to England (and every other country paying homage) they have plenty of political influence and cash to influence with.

I find it sadly comical that tax payers continue to justify directly funding these people with billions of pounds in taxes every year, while trying to diminish their influence. The indirect funding is quite extensive as well.

Oh, I know.. if the Monarchy was dissolved a few corn dog venders would never be able to find other work.

Good luck with that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Let Me know how that works out for You.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

" the public has to be protected from criminals, including pirate site operators who take advantage of their trust"

Ah yes... I need to be protected.. from being able to download pirated content.
That's the most BS phrase I've heard all week.

Interesting

[MitchDev]

I thought part of the purpose of the internet was to get around all government and regulation....

The City of London shouldn't be allowed to have

[Anonymous Coward]

Police. Obviously they need to have a licence to be allowed to have a government if they keep doing stupid sh*t like this.

ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. The fact that any city even has such a unit.

Re:Protecting Ain't Bea's Pie...

[sudon't]

I'm glad I'm not the only who noticed this bastard child of Andy and Barney. But, back to the original topic...

"In the end, that might mean that the Internet becomes completely ungovernable..."

That's how these idiots see the internet - as something to be governed. So far, it's been reasonably ungovernable, but as it's gained popularity, we've seen more and more "regulators" try to step in and control what happens on the internet. These nanny types have been very successful in other areas of public life, and they never seem to go away, so I'm very concerned. After all, we've already seen what dictators can do, so a clamped-down internet is technically feasible. I'd hate to see a situation where, in order to maintain freedom of information, we have to resort to a darknet model, and we lose useful things like search engines because those sites can no longer be indexed. But maybe that would be for the best? Either way, I'm not very optimistic.

"We had to destroy this Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

in order to save it."

Another triumph for those with no understanding of the freedoms they allegedly protect.

These "police" are cunts

[Anonymous Coward]

Enuff said.

anarchy and license to launch a website?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 things. 1) descent to anarchy? has he been on 4chan? 2) If that's his approach to "prevent anarchy" he doesn't qualify for that license to launch a website.

nip it in the bud!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just nip it in the bud!

They didn't get it

[matbury]

I think the City of London police saw this: https://xkcd.com/386/ (Duty Calls) and misunderstood it. Now duty calls them to govern and correct the internet.

fix the laws

[Mirar]

If you fixed the laws instead, so it would be a different level for crimes on the internet, there wouldn't be many people breaking the law. Make it legal to download and share intellectual property between individuals. No problem, no lawbreakers that you need to check up on.

It's like introducing a law that you can't go out between 12:00 and 12:01 every day and then say that you need to tighten down the streets with gates and armed guards, and have automatic locks on all doors that doesn't open outwards starting at 11:30, to protect people from breaking the laws.

Sadly, England might not be far from introducing license-only websites. (Scotland, why didn't you run while there were time?)

The Internet did well with anarchy

[gweihir]

Of course, they cannot tolerate that. They want a police-state where the police controls everything and anything they do not like is made illegal. No surprise. Give the police control over individual freedoms and soon you have none. It is just not in the mind-set of these people to let others decide what they want to do. Everything has to be controlled and monitored and requires a permit.

Misplaced effort.

[iq145]

They just need to keep going after guys like this: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...