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.

10 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Stupid. by sims+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't this make anyone who regularly watches the news a criminal?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Stupid. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. An educated populace is always difficult to rule, but an uneducated populace is periodically DANGEROUS to rule.

      I'd rather have a constant bit of semi-civilized chaos than periodic anarchy.

      However, politicians are just people, like the rest of us. They can be stupid, short-sighted, and blinded by ideology just as easily as the rest of us. Maybe moreso, since that third item tends to lead you to a career in politics...

    3. Re: Stupid. by bsolar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, you're saying they don't want people reading terrorist websites because then people might find out that the terrorists are actually good guys?

      What people might find out is not that terrorists are good guys, but that bad guys once in a while might have a point too. Furthermore they might realise the actual good guys might not have always been worthy of praise...

      Basically, they are afraid people might realise the gross oversimplifications your comment exemplifies are not a good way to reason about issues.

    4. Re:Stupid. by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't this make anyone who regularly watches the news a criminal?

      Not if they make it illegal to report on terrorism

      But, it's always been illegal to report on terrorism.

      --
      For hire.
  2. Even China doesn't typically arrest for reading by evolutionary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  3. Extension of an existing law by Neil_Brown · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is the extension of an existing law for âoecollecting or making a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorismâ, or possessing such information.

    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.

  4. Re:This is why the 2nd Amendment won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your 2nd may not go away because of the gun nuts, but your 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and who knows what else are down the shitter.

    So, congratulations, you have the right to shoot into a crowd, but nobody is doing a fucking thing to protect the rest of your rights.

    Like it or not, America is trending to fascism just as fast as the Brits .. they just don't go around pretending to be a free society and acting smug about it.

  5. Re:Wow!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In 1984, the government claims that it belongs to the same entity controlling North and South America. That same government also lies about all other geopolitical affairs.

    There's no proof in the novel that the government controls anything outside of Britain or that the American continents are even populated; they could just as well have been ravaged by war or turned so isolationist that they ignore Airstrip One. It's also possible that the three major powers of Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia are in fact one world-wide government that lies to its people in each region.

    Once it's illegal to view any material the government deems dangerous, you can tell them anyone is your ally.

  6. Re:Wow!!!! by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once it's illegal to view any material the government deems dangerous, you can tell them anyone is your ally.

    Exactly this. The U.K. has been working on becoming a full police state for many years now. And every time I point this out I get downmodded here on /.

    But guess what, the joke's on you, silly Brits. You get what you vote for.

    The U.S. voted for a clown and got a clown. The U.K. voted for a police state, and got a police state.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.