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

Police?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 15:08 · Score: 5, Informative

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?? by NotInHere · 2014-09-28 15:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Where is the (+1; Insightful Troll) mod?
Re:Police?? by demachina · 2014-09-28 15:28 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
@de_machina
Re:Police?? by NotInHere · 2014-09-28 15:47 · Score: 4, Informative

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?? by _Shad0w_ · 2014-09-28 16:24 · Score: 1

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.

--
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Re:Police?? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-09-28 16:43 · Score: 5, Funny

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?? by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-09-28 17:03 · Score: 1

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?? by gl4ss · 2014-09-28 17:15 · Score: 2

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?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Police?? by fustakrakich · 2014-09-28 17:26 · Score: 1

"Democracy" is for other people...
God save the Queen!

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Police?? by AK+Marc · 2014-09-28 19:30 · Score: 1

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Police?? by mwvdlee · 2014-09-28 19:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Police?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:23 · Score: 1

Doesn't change the reek of terminal-stage corruption though.
Re:Police?? by WillKemp · 2014-09-28 20:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

That tiny part has financed most of englands colonisation efforts
Bullshit! Robbing the victims of colonisation is what financed it.
Re:Police?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:38 · Score: 1

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?? by rvw · 2014-09-28 20:45 · Score: 1

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?? by mwvdlee · 2014-09-28 21:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Police?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 21:14 · Score: 1

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?? by marcello_dl · 2014-09-28 21:18 · Score: 2

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?

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:Police?? by cmdr_tofu · 2014-09-28 22:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

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?? by Z00L00K · 2014-09-28 22:15 · Score: 1

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

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Police?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 22:39 · Score: 2, Funny

and/or retaliation against ports providing sanctuary to pirates
Hey now, leave port 6881 out of this.
Re:Police?? by flyneye · 2014-09-28 22:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:Police?? by NotDrWho · 2014-09-29 00:34 · Score: 2

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 ! ! !"

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Police?? by Xest · 2014-09-29 01:03 · Score: 1

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?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:11 · Score: 1

dod somebody say...cheese pizza?
Re:Police?? by ajb673 · 2014-09-29 01:19 · Score: 1

This gives an interesting take on free speech in the UK FindLaw UK
Re:Police?? by Archtech · 2014-09-29 01:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:Police?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:50 · Score: 1

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?? by kheldan · 2014-09-29 02:37 · Score: 1

"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.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:Police?? by RockClimbingFool · 2014-09-29 02:48 · Score: 1

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?? by cayenne8 · 2014-09-29 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Police?? by Frobnicator · 2014-09-29 05:32 · Score: 2

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.

--
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Re:Police?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 06:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?? by sudon't · 2014-09-29 06:51 · Score: 1

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....

--
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Re:Police?? by Polo · 2014-09-29 08:43 · Score: 1

I'm not sure, do you understand the City of London is not London?
Re:Police?? by NotInHere · 2014-09-29 09:35 · Score: 1

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?? by ihtoit · 2014-09-29 14:02 · Score: 1

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.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:Police?? by ihtoit · 2014-09-29 14:04 · Score: 1

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

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:Police?? by beastofburdon · 2014-09-30 05:18 · Score: 1

Yea, this one needs to exist, or maybe allow +1 or -1 with any of the tags.
Re:Police?? by Sciath · 2014-09-30 06:44 · Score: 1

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.

--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Re:Police?? by HornWumpus · 2014-09-30 07:30 · Score: 1

Start with a broken definition and you waste your time.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Police?? by Sciath · 2014-09-30 08:24 · Score: 1

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

--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

How about protecting the public by crioca · 2014-09-28 15:13 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:How about protecting the public by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 15:38 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 16:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 16:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well then. Revolution it is.
Re:How about protecting the public by cold+fjord · 2014-09-28 16:33 · Score: 1

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

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:How about protecting the public by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-09-28 17:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by MrKaos · 2014-09-28 17:23 · Score: 1

How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?
Applause >
They will never.ever.ever.ever.stop.never

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:How about protecting the public by durin · 2014-09-28 17:53 · Score: 1

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

--
Why, yes! I AM new here.
Re:How about protecting the public by Opportunist · 2014-09-28 18:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:How about protecting the public by Bert64 · 2014-09-28 19:12 · Score: 2

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.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:How about protecting the public by AK+Marc · 2014-09-28 19:31 · Score: 3, Informative

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?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:How about protecting the public by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-09-28 19:41 · Score: 2

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 by mSparks43 · 2014-09-28 19:58 · Score: 3

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 by mSparks43 · 2014-09-28 20:01 · Score: 1

Next they'll be voting on bombing the Internet to kill the 4chan terrorists.
Re:How about protecting the public by mythix · 2014-09-28 20:49 · Score: 1

why is this modded funny?
in a "it's funny cuz it's true" type of sense?
Re:How about protecting the public by aaaaaaargh! · 2014-09-28 21:34 · Score: 2

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 by dargaud · 2014-09-28 22:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Re:How about protecting the public by serviscope_minor · 2014-09-28 22:48 · Score: 1

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.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:How about protecting the public by Ogi_UnixNut · 2014-09-28 23:55 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 00:00 · Score: 1

Civil war? Well, at least you'd be guaranteed a win.
Re:How about protecting the public by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-09-29 01:57 · Score: 1

That would be the "Losers and Hosers Doctrine"?

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:How about protecting the public by u38cg · 2014-09-29 02:02 · Score: 1

Get your party elected to the Court of Common Council.

--
[FUCK BETA]
Re:How about protecting the public by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-09-29 02:03 · Score: 1

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.........

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:How about protecting the public by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-29 03:07 · Score: 1

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

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:How about protecting the public by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-29 03:12 · Score: 1

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.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:How about protecting the public by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-29 03:14 · Score: 1

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

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:How about protecting the public by Opportunist · 2014-09-29 03:45 · Score: 1

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.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:How about protecting the public by Opportunist · 2014-09-29 03:47 · Score: 1

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...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:How about protecting the public by Opportunist · 2014-09-29 03:58 · Score: 1

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.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:How about protecting the public by CaptSlaq · 2014-09-29 03:59 · Score: 1

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 by CaptSlaq · 2014-09-29 04:00 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 04:43 · Score: 1

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 by UnknownSoldier · 2014-09-29 06:15 · Score: 2

/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 by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-09-29 07:50 · Score: 1

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....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:How about protecting the public by kaatochacha · 2014-09-29 07:52 · Score: 1

The First US president did a fairly good job of it
Re:How about protecting the public by currently_awake · 2014-09-29 12:33 · Score: 1

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 by ihtoit · 2014-09-29 14:09 · Score: 1

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.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:How about protecting the public by ihtoit · 2014-09-29 14:12 · Score: 1

Caesar was felled by a dagger.
Just saying.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:How about protecting the public by HornWumpus · 2014-09-30 07:40 · Score: 1

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

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Anarchy??? by _Sharp'r_ · 2014-09-28 15:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.

Re:Anarchy??? by fabioalcor · 2014-09-28 15:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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??? by sbjornda · 2014-09-28 15:53 · Score: 1

The Internet has already descended into Anarchy.

You beat me to it. I was going to respond, "YOU'RE TOO LATE!!!!!"
--
.nosig
Re:Anarchy??? by fustakrakich · 2014-09-28 15:59 · Score: 1

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.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Anarchy??? by amiga3D · 2014-09-28 16:51 · Score: 1

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??? by hey! · 2014-09-28 17:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Anarchy??? by DivineKnight · 2014-09-28 17:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

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??? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-09-28 17:29 · Score: 1

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

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Anarchy??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 17:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Correction: *Risen* into anarchy ...
Re:Anarchy??? by Opportunist · 2014-09-28 18:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Anarchy??? by drinkypoo · 2014-09-28 20:01 · Score: 2

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.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Anarchy??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:01 · Score: 1

... 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??? by Doghouse13 · 2014-09-28 20:06 · Score: 1

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??? by Doghouse13 · 2014-09-28 20:13 · Score: 3, Funny

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??? by lisaparratt · 2014-09-28 20:58 · Score: 1

Funny, lots of little dictatorships sounds a lot like the practical implementation of anarchy to me...
Re:Anarchy??? by itzly · 2014-09-28 21:26 · Score: 1

You beat me to it. I was going to respond, "YOU'RE TOO LATE!!!!!"
Yes, but you were too late.
Re:Anarchy??? by cmdr_tofu · 2014-09-28 22:37 · Score: 1

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??? by oobayly · 2014-09-28 22:43 · Score: 2

Also known as Muphry's Law.
Re:Anarchy??? by Andrewkov · 2014-09-29 03:07 · Score: 1

Yes, and when he says "anarchy", he's misspelling "free".
Re:Anarchy??? by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-29 03:23 · Score: 1

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

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Anarchy??? by Opportunist · 2014-09-29 04:04 · Score: 1

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.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Anarchy??? by Matheus · 2014-09-29 07:31 · Score: 1

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??? by oobayly · 2014-10-01 04:05 · Score: 1

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

What a fool by chromaexcursion · 2014-09-28 15:26 · Score: 2

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 by Jason+Levine · 2014-09-28 15:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:What a fool by amiga3D · 2014-09-28 16:53 · Score: 1

If he were only a bit more ignorant he could be as fucking stupid as Nancy Pelosi.
Re:What a fool by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-09-28 17:30 · Score: 1

He sounds like he works for Putin.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:What a fool by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-09-28 17:44 · Score: 1

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

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:What a fool by Calydor · 2014-09-28 18:14 · Score: 4, Funny

how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators?
By catching them red-handed.

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:What a fool by BitterOak · 2014-09-28 18:16 · Score: 1

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?

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:What a fool by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-09-28 19:45 · Score: 1

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 by 91degrees · 2014-09-28 20:49 · Score: 1

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 by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-28 22:17 · Score: 1

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?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:What a fool by 3.5+stripes · 2014-09-28 22:23 · Score: 2

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

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Re:What a fool by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-28 22:25 · Score: 1

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

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:What a fool by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-28 22:27 · Score: 1

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.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:What a fool by tibit · 2014-09-28 22:46 · Score: 1

2,000 pages long
Maybe if you insist on reading it on a cellphone :/

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:What a fool by Jason+Levine · 2014-09-29 00:39 · Score: 1

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.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:What a fool by shortscruffydave · 2014-09-29 02:16 · Score: 1

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 by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-29 02:33 · Score: 1

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.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:What a fool by Whibla · 2014-09-29 02:55 · Score: 1

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 by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-29 03:24 · Score: 1

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

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:What a fool by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-29 03:25 · Score: 1

Namely, how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators?
ROGUE! Not the color red in French!

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:What a fool by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-29 03:28 · Score: 1

Even a stopped clock...

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

I have an idea by viperidaenz · 2014-09-28 15:27 · Score: 2

Change the law to make what everyone does anyway legal.

Re:I have an idea by kangsterizer · 2014-09-28 15:51 · Score: 1

That sounds way too sane. If everyone does it, its normal.
Re:I have an idea by viperidaenz · 2014-09-29 07:49 · Score: 1

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

Who does this benefit by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-09-28 15:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

It could be worse by jtara · 2014-09-28 15:33 · Score: 1

At least they didn't hire Barney.

Obligatory by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-09-28 15:35 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by curmudgeon99 · 2014-09-28 15:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile by TheMathemagician · 2014-09-28 22:14 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 23:25 · Score: 1

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 by Peter+Simpson · 2014-09-28 23:26 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by curmudgeon99 · 2014-09-29 15:44 · Score: 1

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 by Archtech · 2014-09-29 20:27 · Score: 1

" 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.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile by TheMathemagician · 2014-10-03 05:37 · Score: 1

(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 by TheMathemagician · 2014-10-03 05:41 · Score: 1

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... by reemul · 2014-09-28 15:41 · Score: 1

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.

--
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*

Re:I wonder... by amiga3D · 2014-09-28 16:54 · Score: 1

He'd just shoot his foot.

City of London Police by Jason+Levine · 2014-09-28 15:42 · Score: 2

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?

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:City of London Police by SuricouRaven · 2014-09-28 18:24 · Score: 1

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 by Xest · 2014-09-29 01:15 · Score: 1

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

Fortunately... by msobkow · 2014-09-28 15:44 · Score: 1

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

Wanker.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Fortunately... by rasmusbr · 2014-09-29 00:54 · Score: 1

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:see his employer... by ktetch-pirate · 2014-09-28 15:55 · Score: 2

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.

just wow by ihtoit · 2014-09-28 16:03 · Score: 1

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).

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel

Re:just wow by Microlith · 2014-09-28 16:12 · Score: 1

So.... any links to back this stuff up?
Re:just wow by ihtoit · 2014-09-28 17:12 · Score: 1

my report to evidence the first point: https://www.academia.edu/57099...
The rest is but a websearch away.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:just wow by Microlith · 2014-09-28 18:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by ihtoit · 2014-09-29 03:16 · Score: 1

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.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel

What's really scarry by future+assassin · 2014-09-28 16:06 · Score: 1

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.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:What's really scarry by DivineKnight · 2014-09-28 17:25 · Score: 1

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 by gweihir · 2014-09-30 01:03 · Score: 1

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.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re: People of Great Britain... by O('_')O_Bush · 2014-09-28 16:11 · Score: 1

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.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);

Dear PIPCU by spiritplumber · 2014-09-28 16:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

no. signed, the internet.

--
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.

Oh no, days of downloading movies are over! by SlovakWakko · 2014-09-28 16:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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! by SuricouRaven · 2014-09-28 18:25 · Score: 2

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! by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-09-28 19:49 · Score: 1

...and the Moon.

Re:lol by DivineKnight · 2014-09-28 17:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Up north by Engeekneer · 2014-09-28 17:22 · Score: 2

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 by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-28 21:56 · Score: 1

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).

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Up north by Engeekneer · 2014-09-28 22:32 · Score: 1

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 by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-29 00:57 · Score: 1

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.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Re:Talk About "Nanny State" by MrKaos · 2014-09-28 17:26 · Score: 2

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

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

OK then by real+gumby · 2014-09-28 17:34 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 17:34 · Score: 1

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 by Animats · 2014-09-28 19:41 · Score: 1

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 by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-28 22:12 · Score: 1

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.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Security force owned by a corporation by Ash-Fox · 2014-09-29 10:00 · Score: 1

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.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

its Compuserve by cheekyboy · 2014-09-28 17:47 · Score: 1

AOL or Compuserve it is then.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

fyfe? by the_Bionic_lemming · 2014-09-28 17:53 · Score: 1

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..

--
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!

Governors by CaptQuark · 2014-09-28 18:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Snowdog · 2014-09-29 05:16 · Score: 2

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.

OMG!!!! Rapidswitch by whoever57 · 2014-09-28 18:07 · Score: 2

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?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Quickly! Stop the information! by Tyr07 · 2014-09-28 18:36 · Score: 2

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! by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-09-28 19:52 · Score: 1

What's next? The USA finds out the internet has oil and decides it needs freedom?
Operation Internet Liberation, ahoy!

Re:Talk About "Nanny State" by AK+Marc · 2014-09-28 19:44 · Score: 1

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!!"

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:see his employer... by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-09-28 19:48 · Score: 1

Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit

PIPCU? Sounds like an insult coming from 4chan.

Re:Rules and freedoms by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-09-28 19:53 · Score: 1

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.

Reality check by prsephton · 2014-09-28 20:08 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Rules and freedoms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

... 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'.

So, then... by Chris+Mattern · 2014-09-28 20:40 · Score: 1

He's against Anarchy in the UK, then?

Re:So, then... by Chas · 2014-09-29 03:16 · Score: 1

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!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

WTF? BAD summary! by oneandoneis2 · 2014-09-28 22:56 · Score: 2

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.

--
So.. it has come to this

London has a PIRACY police? by argStyopa · 2014-09-28 23:45 · Score: 1

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.

--
-Styopa

Twins by dcw3 · 2014-09-28 23:51 · Score: 2

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

--
Just another day in Paradise

Well funded well manned by koan · 2014-09-28 23:54 · Score: 1

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://

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

protecting Auntie Beeb's pie... by Thud457 · 2014-09-29 01:05 · Score: 2

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.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Don't trust pirate sites? by GameboyRMH · 2014-09-29 01:12 · Score: 1

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.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Rules and freedoms by trippin_efnet · 2014-09-29 01:34 · Score: 1

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.

Here We Go Again by JimSadler · 2014-09-29 01:59 · Score: 1

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 by jsepeta · 2014-09-29 02:03 · Score: 1

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.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.

First the Stamp Tax and Now This by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-09-29 02:17 · Score: 1

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.

This always cracks me up! by s.petry · 2014-09-29 02:33 · Score: 1

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.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Interesting by MitchDev · 2014-09-29 03:56 · Score: 1

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

Re:Protecting Ain't Bea's Pie... by sudon't · 2014-09-29 06:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
-- sudon't

Air-ride Equipped

They didn't get it by matbury · 2014-09-29 14:49 · Score: 1

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 by Mirar · 2014-09-29 21:15 · Score: 1

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 by gweihir · 2014-09-30 00:58 · Score: 1

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.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Misplaced effort. by iq145 · 2014-10-06 14:43 · Score: 1

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

Slashdot Mirror

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

203 of 302 comments (clear)