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
Come on guys...have you not seen V for Vendetta?
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.
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
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.
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*
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?
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
To the best of my knowledge, General Washington and the leaders of the American Revolution did not wantonly assault, maim, and kill civilians in an attempt to cause the English to withdraw.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
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.
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.
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.
The UK really is in the leading edge when it comes to creeping toward a pervasive police state.
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
As I recall... Part of the justification of the revolution was that the British DID do some of these things, albeit somewhat blown out of context by the press of the day (Boston Massacre anyone). The struggle was for the restoration of the individual's rights, which the King had wantonly disregarded. All one need do is read the Declaration of Independence for the justification and details of why the colonists where unhappy enough to start shooting.
This is NOTHING like today's so called "terrorists" who target the innocent bystander with no provocation or identifiable ideological reason in their target selection other than how to scare as many innocent people as they can to get their cause on the evening news.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
Incidentally, the original meaning of "Terrorism" is that of government that leads by keeping its citizens in fear. Seems the Brits are traditionalists.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Correct. In fact, going by the definition of terrorism today, the American revolution was not terrorism in any way, shape or form. There is a difference between revolutionaries/freedom fighters and terrorists. It is the means of trying to achieve their goal and who they attack in trying to achive those goals.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
I'm not sure about the first one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
" Expel all migrants from the country immediately. "
Migrants? Most of them are good Commonwealth British Citizens from Pakistan and Bangladesh and have been living there for over 50 years.
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.
There was lots of tar and feathering, something that could kill, try painting boiling hot pitch on yourself Not to mention a nice group of revolutionaries led my a nice man named Lynch.
One hell of a lot of colonists were terrorized into heading north (Canada) or south (Caribbean). Of course the victors don't talk much about some of their actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The struggle was for the restoration of the individual's rights, which the King had wantonly disregarded.
Actually it was Parliament that disregarded various rights, just like in this article. We can bitch that the Queen is ultimately responsible for the actions of Parliament such as this discussion is about but the truth is that Parliament is Supreme and has been so since at least the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when they fired James the 2nd and 7th and replaced him with William and Mary. Parliament also beheaded James's father some years earlier.
The Crown hasn't vetoed a law (in Great Britain) since the beginning of the 18th century and that was on the advice of the government of the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
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 going to speed up social cooling..
https://www.socialcooling.com/