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.

13 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 SeaFox · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Well, you're not supposed to research it on your own. Listening to alternative political viewpoints and being able to form your opinions on your own is the greatest evil. Just stay away from those websites and wait for government approved educational materials to inform you about terrorism, and how you should feel about it.

    3. 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...

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Stupid. by mpercy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Misrepresents Citizens United.

      And money doesn't necessarily translate to wins.

      Bloomberg:

      He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign events. At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, Trump won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept federal funds to pay for his general election contest.

      Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012. She spent heavily on television advertising and her get-out-the-vote operation, but in the end, her fundraising edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves.

      On Dec. 8, campaigns and super-PACs filed their post-election reports on fundraising and spending with the Federal Election Commission from Oct. 20 through Nov. 28. Here's where they stood at the end of the race:

      Hillary Clinton
      TOTAL RAISED
      $1,191M
      Candidate Raised to Date* $973.2M
      Spent $969.1M
      Cash on Hand $4.1M

      Super-PACs Raised to Date $217.5M
      Spent $215.1M
      Cash on Hand $3.7M

      Total Raised to Date $1,190.7M
      Total Spent $1,184.1M
      Total Cash on Hand $7.8M

      Donald Trump
      TOTAL RAISED
      $646.8M
      Candidate Raised to Date* $564.3M
      Spent $531.0M
      Cash on Hand $33.3M

      Super-PACs Raised to Date $82.3M
      Spent $85.5M
      Cash on Hand -$1.8M

      Total Raised to Date $646.8M
      Total Spent $616.5M
      Total Cash on Hand $31.5M

    6. 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. Remember remember the 5th of November by aicrules · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come on guys...have you not seen V for Vendetta?

  4. 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.

  5. Re:Wow!!!! by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 3, Funny

    They'll both be taken by surprise by Canada.

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  6. 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.

  7. 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.