Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship Government The Internet Your Rights Online

UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed 250

Posted by samzenpus
from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The UK minister for immigration and security, James Brokenshire has called for the government to do more to deal with 'unsavoury', rather than illegal, material online. 'Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas,' Brokenshire told Wired.co.uk in a statement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

Comments Filter:
  • Fascists (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2014 @05:51PM (#46500923)

    Enough said.

    • Re:Fascists (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2014 @05:54PM (#46500949)

      In other news, most of Britain wants the UK Government to be removed and replaced by people who are not asshats. Unfortunately, it turns out that nobody who is not an asshat can be persuaded to want the job.

      • But the asshat who understands the internet enough not to attempt to sensor it will get my vote. Let the race of the asshats commence.
      • Re:Fascists (Score:5, Insightful)

        by causality (777677) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @07:57PM (#46501707)

        In other news, most of Britain wants the UK Government to be removed and replaced by people who are not asshats. Unfortunately, it turns out that nobody who is not an asshat can be persuaded to want the job.

        In yet other news ... here's an idea! If you are concerned about propaganda causing your citizens to become "radicalized", why not take the most effective steps possible to prevent that? Create the most sane, free, reasonably run society in which civil rights are sacrosanct, all of the laws are sensible, and all of the laws are equally enforced.

        You'll find that far fewer of the citizens would ever want to do anything to oppose that. It's more effective than playing whack-a-mole with an ever-growing list of terrorists.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          That only works if the population has a certain minimum level of education. That is why when countries that have been dictatorships for a very long time suddenly become democracies they often just elect extremists on the orders of religious leaders anyway. Unfortunately politicians in the UK have been working tirelessly to polarize people and stamp out any kind of reasoned political or philosophical thinking, preferring people to vote based on gut feelings they get from listening to soundbites and seeing at

  • We all want things we can't have.
    • Re:Too bad. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:03PM (#46501017)

      Been in the UK in the last 50 years? They've got ludicrous bureaucracies for *everything*. There are reasons that "1984" and "V for Vigilante" were set there, and that London has the highest percentage of government mandated CCTV/capita. Note also that they don't actually *use* the CCTV's to fight crime. They use them for bureaucratic monitoring, such as insisting that people pay the tax for cars in London, or that they park correctly. They're not used for pickpocketing, luggage theft, or even prosecuting vandals. (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records. Been there, done that.)

      Having yet another bureaucracy means more control of political discussion, pure and simple.

      • Re:Too bad. (Score:4, Informative)

        by lister king of smeg (2481612) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @07:06PM (#46501431)

        There are reasons that "1984" and "V for Vigilante"were set there, and that London has the highest percentage of government mandated CCTV/capita.

        I believe that would be V for Vendetta.

      • Re:Too bad. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cyber-vandal (148830) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @07:14PM (#46501489) Homepage

        You're right. No-one has been convicted on CCTV evidence in the UK. Apart from all the people who were.

      • Re:Too bad. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BasilBrush (643681) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @07:17PM (#46501517)

        There are reasons that "1984"(sic) and "V for Vigilante"(sic) were set there

        Yes. Because the UK has a disproportionately high number of a good writers, and both Eric Blair and Alan Moore live(d) there.

        Note also that they don't actually *use* the CCTV's to fight crime. They use them for bureaucratic monitoring, such as insisting that people pay the tax for cars in London, or that they park correctly. They're not used for pickpocketing, luggage theft, or even prosecuting vandals.

        They use the CCTV for all of those things. I think you've been reading too much Daily Mail.

        (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records. Been there, done that.)

        They tend to use the CCTV live. To guide cops to the places where these things are happening. Combing back through recordings is a different matter, with a different balance. It's a significant use of resources to comb through the video, and then the individuals are long gone from the scene of the crime, and are unlikely to be easily identified. It obviously won't be worth it for for petty crimes. But it is done for more serious crimes.

        Not that I'm in favour of all the CCTV. But lying about the uses it's put to isn't helpful.

        • by Jack9 (11421)

          > But lying about the uses it's put to isn't helpful.

          > (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records.

          He was specific and correct based on my experience in the UK of 2007.

          Continue to troll away. That doesn't change the reality.

          • by Vanders (110092)

            He was specific and correct based on my experience in the UK of 2007.

            Based on my experience of the past 34-and-a-bit years in the UK, he was talking complete bollocks, but continue to talk bollocks. That doesn't change the reality.

      • Re:Too bad. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2014 @07:21PM (#46501531)

        Well, yes. That's what the cameras are for. If you put up a camera labelled "Congestion Charge Enforcement", then the only thing that camera can do - by law - is record the license numbers of cars that drive past it. And the only thing that can legally be done with that record is to compare it with the database of cars whose congestion charge is paid up for the day they were observed.

        Any other use of that record would be a criminal offence. That's EU/UK data protection laws, and the US could profit from it.

      • There are reasons that "1984" and "V for Vigilante" were set there, and that London has the highest percentage of government mandated CCTV/capita.

        1984 was published in 1949. Orwell was a forward thinking kinda guy but he didn't know about 21st century CCTV cameras.

      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        Don't forget Max Headroom.

  • by lister king of smeg (2481612) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @05:54PM (#46500953)

    Welcome to the slippery slope. First porn for the children, then illegal torrents, now what ever they feel like banning enjoy your fascism, And remember big brother GCHQ is watching.

    • by currently_awake (1248758) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:11PM (#46501073)
      It's almost like the government is trying to motivate people into using encryption and dark nets. Oh well, if they really want everyone using a VPN to talk with an offshore darknet then I guess we'll just have to oblige.
      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:30PM (#46501217) Homepage Journal

        I think a lot of people are changing aspects of their behavior.

        I encrypt most communications with friends and family now, just to be a dick to whoever's doing surveillance. It's not that I care so much about protecting what's in those communications as I just don't want their lives to be one bit easier than they need to be.

        Sometimes I run Tor for the most mundane things, like looking for a recipe for chocolate flan cake, or the lyrics to songs by Bombay Bicycle Club. It really doesn't add more than a few seconds to what I'm doing and it gives me a tiny bit of satisfaction.

        For all I know, they have a back door to GPG and other crypto, but I can't do anything about that.

        • My Raspberry Pi runs as a permanently connected Tor relay. I'm not brave (stupid?) enough to run an exit node, but at least I improve the resillience and throughput of the network.
      • by nurb432 (527695)

        And then just the act of using a darknet is grounds for jail. Wont matter what content, just that they catch you doing it.

        • by amorsen (7485)

          It is unlikely that they will do something as obvious as that. It will be more like upgrade to existing crimes or make it so that using a darknet shows intent to commit a crime.

          So you wrote something offensive? Antisocial Behaviour, it could get you an ABSO. You wrote it while hiding your tracks with Tor? Now we are talking conspiracy or perverting the course of justice.

          And what if you run a Tor node yourself but do not commit any crimes? Surely you are aware that others might be using it for bad things, so

      • by rtb61 (674572) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @09:33PM (#46502163) Homepage

        The slope of course they are heading for, user pays. Want to put up a web site, why should the public have to pay to ensure it is 'safe' and acceptable. A simple preview fee to ensure that it meets government requirements, say around $10,000 (fully tax deductible of course) should be enough to push most people off the internet and if fees are to difficult due to continual changes perhaps $1,000,000 permanent licence fee to guarantee all troublesome sites are blocked (not porn sites of course they can afford it). The goal to force the internet back to the preferred main stream media model where only the few can afford to publish content and the majority are silenced. The majority need to be told what to think and they are the only ones with those evil anti-government thoughts, not to tell each other what they are actually thinking. Poms actually voted for this government, what the fuck were they thinking.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Looks like freedom provided by the government is on the way out. Time to get our own freedom: time for darknets. They can block what ever plain text crap they want, but when then come for the crypto and P2P routing, thats where we have to make a stand. That is the last hope, and we better not lose that. I'd like to stop this craziness before then, but we absolutely can't let them force all crypto or acceptance of incoming connections to be on a whitelist. As the darknets continue to defeat their filtering w

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:24PM (#46501159)

      ...designed by an advisor who was later arrested for CP [dailymail.co.uk]?

      ...in a country whose government has collected a million pictures [theguardian.com] of naked Americans cyber-webcamming on Yahoo?

      ...that has one surveillance camera for every 11 people [telegraph.co.uk] in the country?

      ...whose brilliant standards of morality lead to the persecution and destruction of everyone from Oscar Wilde [wikipedia.org] to Alan Turing [wikipedia.org]?

      Fuck you, James Brokenshire. How's that for unsavory?

      • Someone from the country of Jim Crow laws shouldn't really be throwing stones in their glass house. Plus you lot persecuted homosexuals just as energetically.

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          If that's the best you've go then we're in a pretty good position really. If you've got to go digging that far back then you aren't terribly good at finding our faults. That much is certain.

        • by sjames (1099)

          If it helps any, I don't believe the U.S. government should be deciding what is acceptable on the web either.

      • Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter designed by an advisor who was later arrested for CP?

        No.

        ...whose brilliant standards of morality lead to the persecution and destruction of everyone from Oscar Wilde to Alan Turing?

        Are you from the US? If so, would you like to discuss standards of morality in the US 60 years ago?

        everyone from Oscar Wilde to Alan Turing?

        What does that even mean? I think what you meant was "some people, including Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing."

  • Unsavoury? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So, they are going to take down or block all the assorted unsavoury government web sites?

    • by BeerCat (685972)

      So, they are going to take down or block all the assorted unsavoury government web sites?

      Or better still they clearly need to block themselves in perpetuity (to quote from one of their former "dear leaders", it would deny them the "oxygen of publicity")

  • by Badger Nadgers (2423622) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:01PM (#46501003)
    Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. 1) Politics 2) Religion 3) Bankers 4) Advertising
  • by msobkow (48369) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:01PM (#46501007) Homepage Journal

    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Fuck the UK and their censorship.

    • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:08PM (#46501051)

      Don't blame all of us. It's just our government being full of idiots right now. Nothing much we can do about it - even when elections run around, censorship policy is rather low on the agenda right now.

  • Good to know England is once again fighting to keep the world safe from those who advocate the violent overthrow of the lawful government [about.com].

  • by tomhath (637240) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:17PM (#46501111)

    UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

    The UK minister for immigration and security, James Brokenshire has called for the government to do more...

    One bureaucrat suggesting the government should do more to flag YouTube videos is not the same as the UK Government wanting to actually do it.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:51PM (#46501357)

      The minister is not a bureaucrat. I can't tell whether you don't know what a "bureaucrat" is, or whether you don't understand the UK's political structure

      James Brokenshire is a politician. So a bunch of people vote for James, rather than the other options they were given, to represent them in the Commons, the elected part of the Parliament of the UK. Then, David Cameron - also a politician, and the leader of the biggest political party in the Commons, thus Prime Minister - selected James to be in charge of immigration and security. The actual people running immigration and security are all bureaucrats, but the guy at the top of the pile, deciding what to do, rather than doing it is the Minister, James, who is a politician.

      Now, "immigration and security" has bugger all to do with the Internet, so you are correct that James' opinion is not magically UK Government policy, but it's a mistake to say he's just a "bureaucrat". James gets to make policy, albeit not directly on this subject.

  • Yep. Let's invade some foreign countries and occupy them. Then when we get the extremist fallout following our actions, then let's try to solve it with more draconian actions! I would have had some level of sympathy for for targeting extremist material online (while I would still be against by principle) if UK was a country that had approached the 'War on Terror' in a humane way rather than going to war (and going to war on false premises as well...)
    • by amiga3D (567632)

      I never understood this desire to shut down dissenting opinion. I want to hear what the people that hate me have to say. It's information I need. The more they have to say the better I like it.

  • welcome to All Those Guys
  • "Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas,"

    Trying to restrict the free flow of information through censorious means is a sure way to get a few radicals. So is trying to enforce your rule and remove info that isn't in your country.

  • Nope, not one of those.. not at all.. Is anyone surprised?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    So Stephen Conroy decided to try his hand at UK politics?

    We dealt with this same problem in Australia about 5 years ago and the people spoke. The minister was out, the policy trashed, and life went on.

  • by vix86 (592763) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @07:25PM (#46501541)
    And this is the kind of stuff that many of us fear when the US gives up ICANN/the internet. First its porn, then what next?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    According to Pat Condell on YouTube [youtube.com], self censoring is already the standard in the UK.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The involvement of governernment to limit freedom is now a daily activity. Not just in the U.K.
    I can't imagine how a website "radicalized anybody", wouldn't you really need to be radical to begin with?
    It will soon lead to: well we have banned any political opposition to the current ruling party, watch it's comming!

  • fuk off beta (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    go away beta

  • .. it washes away my sand castles. Let's stop the tide from coming in.

    In theory, anyone can point at any DNS root servers that they want to. In practice, most peoples' moms don't know how to do that. In practice, "the internet", as far as most moms are concerned, is whatever Google indexes. If the big search engines decide to start indexing from some alternative set of root servers, then all the ISPs will point there, too, and ICANN won't survive a week.

  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @09:55PM (#46502265)

    Does that just mean anything the government does not like? Would a video of police beating an innocent man be considered "unsavory?'

  • PROTHERO: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

    DASCOMBE: It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people -- ref [imdb.com]
  • by Type44Q (1233630) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @11:03PM (#46502517)

    UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

    I can certainly agree with this and, I might add, we can start by deleting all traces of any online recipes that call for (*shudder*) fucking tropical fruit such as pineapple as a goddamned pizza topping.

    On an slightly less sarcastic note (note that I wasn't completely joking about the fucking abomination that's pineapple pizza, BTW), someone please bash in the skulls of these stupid fascist puppet fucks. Now.

  • would be fine if goatse vanished from the Internet
  • By your actions you will be known, not by what you say.

    The blocking of sites is nothing else than censorship, and instead of blocking the sites and tracing the active on those sites the only thing that happens is that the sites will move, become more extreme and still be accessible by the followers.

    And by that I mean that by imposing censorship on the terrorists you actually become what the terrorists want you to become.

    Terrorists and children do share some common treats - it's when it gets silent that some

  • 'Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas,'

    Hasn't history taught us that preventing free speech creates fertile ground for extremism? Spread their nonsense with a megaphone so that sane people can try to explain to them what is wrong with it. Without proper feedback, the rage grows.

  • To the submitter of the article, theodp, Hugh Pickens and other uninformed twats:

    When there's an actual bill introduced in the House Of Commons, then and only then can you correctly say "UK Government wants to ...".

    When some random politician is spouting off, you can't. It's a non-story. Just STFU already.

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...