Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Could Imprison People For Looking At Terrorist Content (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: Not content with trying to "combat" encryption, the UK government also wants to criminalize looking at terrorist content. The leading Conservative party has announced plans which threaten those who "repeatedly view terrorist content online" with time behind bars. New laws will be introduced that could see consumers of terrorist content imprisoned for up to 15 years. The same maximum sentence would face those who share information about police, soldiers or intelligence agencies with a view to organizing terrorist attacks.
And 'Murricans are the evil ones. Between hate speech laws and now what appears to be the true beginnings of thoughtcrime, those sophisitcated Europeans are representin'.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Assuming the summary is a correct and concise one.
You can't learn about terrorism without reading about it. Not reading about it leaves you ignorant. Being ignorant removes the tools for combating it.
This is just a dumb, knee-jerk reaction idea from the start.
To the best my knowledge, you can be arrested for POSTING content critical of the government (or considered not in "public interests", but as far as I know, you aren't imprisoned for simply reading it (China as so many censor mechanisms in place it probably doesn't matter so much). Does this party even realize what precedent they are setting in proposing this?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
If a guy gets caught committing a terrorist act and is found guilty for it and he was known to be viewing terrorist videos, I would be fine with adding a year for every minute of video he watched or giving him the death penalty if he watched over an hour.
Come on guys...have you not seen V for Vendetta?
It was written by terrorists. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Waging a war on terror is like waging a war on poverty or injustice, or the color blue.
A million years from not there will exist terrorism, poverty, injustice, and the color blue. Of coarse the names will all have changed by then, but the song will remain the same.
How are you Wiggy Buggers over there going to get your rights back without guns?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Not my cup of tea.
home come they dont block it
Apparently, as it stands, it does not cover streaming, so will be extended to reference it. The proposal would also change the penalty from a maximum of 10 years in prison to a maximum of 15 years.
It's a little incongruous that the OP is suggesting* the UK could imprison people for *looking* at terrorist content, while (it seems at least from across the Atlantic) that you can't swing a dead cat in London without hitting firebrand Muslim clerics openly calling for the destruction of the west.
*these sorts of posts are always bordering on the histrionic - "this is being considered" becomes "this has been made into law"
-Styopa
unless you read it first?
I sure hope assuaging your liberal guilt has been worth it because you're paying one hell of a price.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Oh, May, you naughty minx, you know just how to get the right-wing blood pumping. Were Trump a few decades younger, he might even take you for a roll in the fields of wheat.
He'll settle for implementing the same thing for USA in a year or two, once net neutrality is dead and buried.
Somebody gets caught committing a terrorist act and you want to base his sentencing on his video habits? That seems silly. Surely in that case there would be more relevant charges.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Good riddance Britain, nobody already liked you in Europe and now you keep adding insult to your injury.
I think a certain amount of political sanity will be restored to the EU once those twats from Westminster isolate themselves.
So, when these politicians start getting spammed with emails full of "terrorist content", are they going to report to have themselves locked up? What, there's a "legitimate reason" exclusion that will cover them?
And no one was surprised when they wrote themselves out of the law that covers everyone else.
How is this any different from kiddie porn?
In many countries, you can go to jail for looking at or possessing child pornography.
So we're saying that even though terrorists are at least as bad as nonces, that Islamist snuff videos shouldn't be treated in the same way as child pornography.
What am I missing here?
Do the politicians intend to put MI-5 officers in jail, for trolling for terror intelligence? or will Her Majesty's Government issue a LICENSE for proper people to view terrorist websites?
Stop! You're under-arrest for suspicion of viewing... oh, sorry, you've got a LICENSE to do that.
Wait... it's EXPIRED!!! Stop, you fiend, or I'll blow my whistle!
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Say it ain't sooo ooo o o
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Fascism is in vogue again. Someone get May some blinkers!
Would you also be fine with adding a year for every cup of tea they drink?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
And don't forget all those videos on youtube of Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting reptilian. What's up with that?
If someone else loads a link on my computer, but I had no intention of loading the link, does that constitute reading? If I close my eyes before looking at the content, but it loaded, have I read it? If a page is loaded into a browser, but that browser window is not visible (say, a nefarious act caused by malware), has it been read? More generic: if an HTTP request to load data from a server has been performed, but it is not delivered in a meaningful way to a visible window, has content been consumed? From a legality perspective, it would seem it may be difficult to link a data request to human consumption, similar to the idea that an IP does not directly correlate to a user.
Additionally, as the article infers, what determines if content is "terrorist content?" Does viewing purpose (e.g. defensive research) have any bearing? How many times is considered "repeated?" I've not seen any details beyond the article, but it would be interesting to see how these are defined.
ntioned. Every headline with "UK" or "England" in it is always about some batshit insane, sadistic bullshit. That place is an even worse hellhole than many other places on this shitty planet.
I would be fine with EXTENDING his sentence, not basing his sentence on his video watching habits. Reading comprehension, sir. Reading comprehension.
âoeThe past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.â
- 1984, George Orwell
If they used the terrorist tea pot... http://www.switchedonset.com/2...
This way they'll have another charge to throw at the perpetrator in case the other 20 don't stick. Plus, this is a great law to have out there to create a bureau to enforce this. How will one enforce the law if no one is scanning the net? Its time to move the rules away from just the spy agencies so that everyone can play.
-Arzaboa
...Get out of the EU ASAP. Thx.
And best of all is that the Government gets to decide what is and what isn't "terrorist material"! Can't wait to see an entire country behind bars... I thought it would have been the USA that would win this race, but this is a power move by the UK.
If the length of his sentence is determined in part by his video habits, then his sentence is based in part on those habits. This isn't complicated.
I got a speeding ticket based on the officer clocking me at 90 in a 75. I tried to explain that my speed was BASED on 75 and only EXTENDED to 90. He didn't understand.
That means in gathering military intelligence about your enemy, you should be imprisoned. Or if you are gathering academic research. Facepalm.
We'll make great pets
What we have here effectively is outlawing thoughts and ideas. Gone are the days of debate or even discussion (those already get you locked up for posting something wrong or MIBS at you door for the wrong search terms). You're not even allowed to think something is bad, just "thinking" about something irregardless of intent is criminal. It's a natural extension from "if you've got nothing to hide, you have no reason to be nervous" to "that thought would never cross the mind of an innocent person". If you don't think we're there already, try buying an airline ticket in the US at the airport with cash and see what happens.... ... to name just a few....
We are exactly where all the "evil overlord corporations" movies of the early '70's predicted.... less all the cool things like hover cars and transportation tubes (hyperloops?)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Home secretary Amber Rudd said: âoeI want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law.â By far-right propaganda I assumes she is referring to the Daily Mail, Sun, Express newspapers etc.
I'll [deliberately] side-step any question regarding the legitimacy of this as a piece of legislation, but would like to ask a question about implementing it.
The question is, how can someone who has no intent to break the law be expected to know or have reasonable confidence that they *abide* by the law. If I see a link on a page that reads, "how to make your own garden pond" and the link instead takes me to a page about home made explosives, am I guilty?
If I work in the defence industry to design and build armour for military vehicles - and I research different types of explosives and their capabilities on line, have I broken the law?
If I *don't* work in the defence industry, but read the same material as the previous comment, does that put me across the line?
In one sense I can see and am willing to try to understand the predicament of legislators when it comes to this type of challenge. But the problems with censorship of this type - and this is censorship, no doubt about it - are:-
1. How can we possibly have a set of unambiguous, clear-cut guidelines that tell a citizen so they understand what is acceptable and what is not? If I exceed 70mph on a motorway in the UK, I am breaking the law. But if the law said, "must not exceed a reasonable speed given conditions at the time", then the law becomes subjective and impossible to enforce. The same is true here. This question becomes infinitely more complex if you consider cases of reading about divisive figures from history. Was Mahatma Ghandi a terrorist for encouraging passive civil disobedience? How about Che Guevara? Could reading about the Cuban Revolution mark me as a terrorist?
2. Who gets to decide where we draw the line? Put this another way - what about scope creep? Is today's political ideologist tomorrow's terrorist?
Whatever the relative merits of this as an idea, any, *any* implementation is so fraught with dangers for a society as to be worthy of deep and thoughtful scrutiny. This is the top of a very, very slippery slope.
Go to prison for thinking? UK is on my top ten list of places to visit, for sure!
Sending someone to prison is most definitely a threat of violence. To use violence or intimidation against civilians to further a political or social agenda is the very definition of terrorism. This law would thus be terroristic. So, I guess if you can't beat them, you join them.
Keep it up jugheads, this just increases the fire under Elon's butt to GET HIS ASS TO MARS.
A person's sentence is based on the charges against him. It sounds like there's a proposal for additional charges, on which the sentence would be based. Are you talking about digging up past viewing habits for convicted terrorists and re-trying them to EXTEND their sentence? That's the only way I can make sense of what you're saying and it still seems silly. Maybe I AM failing reading comprehension because your comment sure seems like nonsense.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
If you're dumb enough to browse questionable content openly and without the use a VPN or TOR Proxy, then it's really just punishment for not thinking before you act.
A couple years ago, a friend of mine's son was in high school, and was in the same class with a classmate who asked the chemistry teacher about the Haber process (to make ammonia from free nitrogen in the air). The teacher had the kid hauled off for "soliciting terroristic help", and the parents actually had to deal with a juvi court trial with the penalty being that the kid would be incarcerated until age 21. (The kid was 16 at the time.) Thankfully the case was dismissed, but it took about three months and summer school for the kid to get caught back up with classes.
Five years in the slammer for asking how a plant removes nitrogen in the air.
The UK really is in the leading edge when it comes to creeping toward a pervasive police state.
Here here, I hate it as well.
Careful! that link might land some brits in prison :/s
Only fucking retard idiots equate refugees to terrorists
Its going to be hard to research terrorism if itâ(TM)s illegal to look at their trail on the internet. This should be a big boost to the terrorists. Viewing their content will be âforbidden fruitâ(TM) for disturbed or dissatisfied folks but genuine research into their content, recruitment methods, etc will be illegal. In situations where parents are trying to track down runaway children whoâ(TM)ve hooked up with terrorists the process of looking for their kids will make them criminals. What a stupendous idea.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
to research terrorism. We're doing it for you. Trust me when I say we'll tell you everything you need to know.
And so the establishment of a totalitarian regime continues. Expect this nice law to be applied to anything those in power do not like very soon.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Only the same kind of person refuses to see that refugees and terrorists *sometimes* mixed together. Unless you can tell for sure who's who, it's pretty idiotic to just let folks in. Which is, of course, the same justification for "the Wall".... But don't let your political views limit your thinking....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Keeping an idea out of the UK is going to be difficult. Scarfolk Council have some proposals to take the legislation further: https://scarfolk.blogspot.com/...
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Soviet Union, and we criticize Russia...
This was exactly the case 30 years ago in soviet countries, you were going to jail for looking at "illegal" content"
As usual, they are looking at everything but the most obvious thing. Close the fucking borders! Expel all migrants from the country immediately. Stop being afraid to profile muslims and look closely a the mosques. Nearly 100% of the terrorism in europe is currently radical islamic terrorism. You guys live on an island you are better off than the everyone else in europe.
Or you can turn into the next sharia shithole but at least you won't be "racist".
I'm sure the "terrorist" content they are speaking of is right wing content anyways.
The right to read is fundamental to intellectual freedom. Any abridgment is effectively mind control.
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."
– Thurgood Marshall
I'm not sure about the first one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Which part of ADDING didn't they teach you at indo-chimp accadimmy?
The Tories are even making Trump look like a genius.
If a guy gets caught committing a terrorist act, then the punishment should be commensurate with the crime.
Advocating for the trumping-up of charges is always a bad idea.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The state is right there with you looking over your virtual shoulder.
Remember the movie "Brazil"? I think its depiction of a government that puts in a lot of effort to divert attention from acts of terror is not too far-fetched.
Chinas censors aims at making it (technically) impossible for people to read stuff, I wouldn't say that is any better.
Their propanda is much different to that from the US or Russia, too: Instead of constantly talking about how rotten and evil the respective others are, they just flood all channels with a never-ending stream of "good news about China", as if by pouring tons of "positive stories" they can keep people from perceiving any "negative stories" being reported on China.
So I'm a PhD student. About half my dissertation will be taken up with examining jihadist norms, and that means downloading a metric tonne of terrorist materials. This sort of indiscriminate law will catch people who'e committed no crime. A lot of those people will be people who are just curious. Some will be people with a legitimate interest in those materials. And some will be people who might turn out to be terrorists (given enough time) but who are innocent until then.
This is really a discussion about censorship. A such (history shows) it is very dangerous territory.
This is part of Europe's Great War on Reality.
In Europe, there are truths you cannot talk about, ways you cannot speak about things in the world, opinions you cannot express and now other people's thoughts you cannot read.
If you cannot view reality, you cannot think clearly about it. If you cannot speak about the nature of reality, you cannot develop hypotheses about reality. If you cannot view or speak about reality, you cannot know reality. If you cannot know reality, you cannot form an effective plan of action for dealing with reality.
Like the EU itself, the tighter the EU tries to grip the minds of their citizens, the more they slip through its fingers.
You know the old saying - "It's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" ?
Not so much in this case. Far better to ask for permission for legitimate research into IS, jihadi weapon use, construction of WMD, than to try to wheedle out of a prison sentence.
It's going to be tough on reporters.
Currently in China it is not difficult to obtain 'not-that-nice' (which means, anti CPP) reading materials
In fact you can buy books with all kinds of controversial 'stories' (who knows if the stories are true or not) about CPP and individual leaders of CPP in Hong Kong and bring them into China (they won't check, as there are way too many people crossing the border every single day) and give them to your Chinese friends
Unlike North Korea, reading those materials in China won't land the readers behind bars
The scarier thing about this is it'll be abused to jail people.
Like the videos we've been seeing lately of Baltimore Police planting evidence, this will be the same thing.
"Oh, we totally found ISIS videos on his seized phone, your honor. (The fact that we're not mentioning that we planted them not wistanding.)"
A year or so ago, I thought that Brexit was a tool for the UK to avoid the reach creeping evil EUSSR laws. Now I'm beginning to think that it was a tool for the UK to establish even more evil laws and to stop the EU from preventing that.
This is not new. It is already illegal in the UK to download terrorist material. The proposal is to close the loop-hole that streaming is not covered in the definition of downloading.
This is great! Now my Islamic State brothers and I can freely discuss our plot to destroy the United Kingdom on the open internet, secure in the knowledge that the UK authorities won't be snooping on us, because it's illegal!
This is going to speed up social cooling..
https://www.socialcooling.com/