Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Your Rights Online

UK Government Crowd-Sourcing Censorship 262

Posted by samzenpus
from the tell-us-everything dept.
angry tapir writes "The UK public can report 'terrorism-related' Web sites to authorities for removal from the Internet under a new program launched by the British government. The program is a way in which the government is seeking to enforce the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006. These laws make it illegal to have or to share information intended to be useful to terrorists, and ban glorifying terrorism or urging people to commit terrorist acts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Government Crowd-Sourcing Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • Me! Me! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thanshin (1188877) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:03AM (#31020540)

    I hereby report "slashdot.org".

    • by thijsh (910751) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:07AM (#31020564) Journal
      Scaring large groups of the population by threatening to report them for a terrorism-related fate of certain doom could in itself be considered an act of terrorism... Maybe not by the standards of the 2000 and 2006 laws, but surely by the future 2012 law am I required to proactively report your attempted terrorism on "slashdot.org".
      • by Thanshin (1188877)

        That's exactly what a terrorist would say.

        But we got you now, you terroristic slashdotter who only wants to slash our freedoms and... damage us over time?

        • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @08:31AM (#31021350)

          So, who wants to flood this system to the point that it starts impacting everyone and gets removed?
          I'm thinking of something like this:

          Google for terms like "armed resistance" "bomb made from" "nerve gas" "freedom" "oppression" "kill" "opposition" "freedom of speech"

          then some setup where we run through the first few hundred thousand google results, grab the domain names and use some PHP script to serve up bite sized portions that random Slashdoters can copy paste into the form for submitting "terrorist" web pages.
          I'm thinking we could drown the system in noise.

          Or am I supporting the terrorists now?

      • by LingNoi (1066278) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:32AM (#31020676)

        By that time everyone would be on IPv6 and their site won't work.. https://reporting.direct.gov.uk/bin/url_checker.php?url=ipv6.google.com [direct.gov.uk]

      • by Chief Camel Breeder (1015017) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @07:15AM (#31020856)

        Following the links in TFA leads to a goverment web-page listing one-line descriptions of things they consider illegal. But their definitions are broken. They include this:

        web pages that show pictures, videos or descriptions of violence against anyone due to their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity

        That would be...news sites? Maybe we should all report news.bbc.co.uk?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by thijsh (910751)

          sexual orientation or gender identity

          Hmmm... does "Slashdot reader" also constitute a 'sexual orientation and/or gender identity'? :-)

          My non-scientific list of common gender-identities in least-to-most discriminated order:
          - Heterosexuals
          - Hot lesbians
          - Bisexual women
          - Metrosexuals
          - Feminist lesbians
          - Homosexuals (male)
          - Bisexual males
          - Fetishists / 'Deviant' sexuals
          - Slashdot reader (virgins)

          Since roughly 50% of the population sexually discriminates against the average Slashdot reader you have reached the bottom of the list... Ple

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mikael (484)

            There was a newspaper article on this topic. Apparently a person can be categorized as being male/female/hermaphrodite in three different categories; genetically, physically and psychologically. Going by those rules, you would end up having
            a cube type diagram with 27 different types (a bit like the nationstates cube for types of country).

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dan541 (1032000)

        An act of terrorism is anything the government doesn't like. What ever you do don't threaten to blow up an airport on twitter.

    • The UK public can report 'terrorism-related' Web sites to authorities for removal from the Internet

      So I assume they are going to post the urls to /.

    • In Soviet Russia, Websites Report You!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:03AM (#31020542)

    Good luck with that.

    No, seriously, all the best to those making a grand attempt to remove something from the internet without just causing it to be spread around even more. I imagine you'll have many fun years of failure.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:08AM (#31020570)
      I tipped them off about 4chan.org and their constant hate speech. Unfortunately, the process seems anonymous, so I'm now the number one suspect.
    • by Tim C (15259) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:31AM (#31020666)

      I wonder how many things are removed from the Internet that we simply don't get to hear about...

      Sure, there are high-profile cases in which it backfires and causes the offending material to be spread far and wide, but I'd be willing to bet that that happens in a tiny minority of the cases, and that in the rest, almost no-one not directly involved ever even knows.

      • by VShael (62735) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @07:13AM (#31020836) Journal

        I wonder how many things are removed from the Internet that we simply don't get to hear about...

        Good question. There are websites, such as The Memory Hole, which specifically try to maintain records of things which perhaps the powerful controlling interests of mainstream media would like to scrub from history. Like Benazir Bhutto's confirmation that Bin Laden was dead. Or the Pentagon admitting that it targeted civilian water supplies in Iraq. Or Israel claiming to reprimand two top army officers for ordering the Jan. 15 attack on the UN compound in Gaza last year that used white phosphorus shells, but actually not disciplining them at all. That sort of thing, of which there is plenty. Project Censored does a yearly round up of the most important stories ignored by the mainstream media.

        There are the things which disappear because no one gives a crap. (My old Geocities website)

    • by jimicus (737525) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:49AM (#31020744)

      Good luck with that.

      No, seriously, all the best to those making a grand attempt to remove something from the internet without just causing it to be spread around even more. I imagine you'll have many fun years of failure.

      Actually, for all practical purposes they can do exactly this. It transpires that for all practical purposes we have a Great Firewall of Britain - and very few people were aware it even existed until recently:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ [theregister.co.uk]

      How it's implemented depends on your ISP. One or two put up an error page saying "Sorry, you can't look at this" - but most simply block the TCP connection in the first place so it appears to a casual observer like the site in question is down.

      • by VShael (62735)

        This is similar to the way the largest Irish broadband provider (EIRCOM) prevents its users from reaching thepiratebay.org

      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @07:36AM (#31020974) Journal
        Note that it's not a government-mandated censor, it's opt-in by ISPs and run by a non-government organisation (the Internet Watch Foundation, which seems to have no mandate and no accountability). Some ISPs don't opt in, so you get full uncensored access, although the large ones do.
        • by mdwh2 (535323) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @09:26AM (#31021928) Journal

          The Government have repeatedly told the ISPs that if they don't do it "voluntarily", they'll pass a law forcing them to do it. And from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7904607.stm [bbc.co.uk] , Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."

          Yes, they're so far "only" at 95%, but that just means they're not all the way there yet. It is Government mandated though.

          It's the worst of both worlds. We're being forced into it by the Government, but because it's handled by a non-Government entity, there's no oversight or right of appeal, and the Government just say "Oh it's nothing to do with us, the ISPs 'chose' to do this".

    • by damburger (981828)
      Yep. Its all very well working from the Stasis operating manual, but they didn't have to contend with modern information technology...
    • by sznupi (719324)

      I suppose you can't really make something dissapear; but you can make it so obscure that masses are unlikely to stumble upon it.

      A bit Orwellian, you say? Quite fitting, since it's UK...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by mSparks43 (757109)
  • So, if a terrorist does a Google search for info about weapons, will Google be censored?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by cheesewire (876598)

      Not quite, from TFA:

      People can report Web sites on Direct.co.uk by filling out a Web-based form. The form includes categories to describe what's on the Web site, such as "terrorist training material" or "hate crimes."

      So when we find some .co.uk site with instructions on how to take down our infrastructure, we can report it. Although it then goes onto say while basically a good idea, few people who come across actually useful info will know what to do with it, followed by some lawyer quoted with this little

  • Catch 22 (Score:5, Funny)

    by netpixie (155816) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:10AM (#31020574) Homepage

    Citizen: "Ossifer, I've looked at this website and it is terism"
    Plod: "So you admit to looking at terism? Go directly to Belmarsh. Do not pass go"

  • by mykos (1627575) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:11AM (#31020576)

    Always a horrifying thought, being reported by your neighbors.

        I work with an elderly West German lady. She was telling me that her East German friends had grown a lifetime of distrust for just about everyone. Some East Germans that grew up steeped in this mindset still keep new friends at arm's length, even today.

    Also, the story reminded me of this gem:
    There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ [whitehouse.gov]

  • by VShael (62735) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:12AM (#31020584) Journal

    Because they scare the sh*t out of me, and I'm pretty sure they're doing it to influence my vote.

    • When I applied for security clearance, one of the questions that I had to answer was 'have you ever tried to overthrow the government by violent, political, or other means?' Every election so far I have tried to overthrow the government by political means, namely by voting for people who are not part of the government to replace ones that are. When a party in the UK gains a majority, the leader is invited by the monarch to form a new government. Overthrowing the government periodically is a normal part o

      • by Tim C (15259)

        When I applied for security clearance, one of the questions that I had to answer was 'have you ever tried to overthrow the government by violent, political, or other means?'

        I'm not sure if you're misremembering it, or they've changed it, but I filled in the forms the other week (despite already holding a current clearance - silly customer doesn't trust the usual clearance scheme and runs their own in parallel that uses the same form...) and that question pertains to "the democratic process", not the governm

        • It was back around 2000 or 2001, so hopefully they've fixed it by now. I did point out the error when I submitted the form the first time.
          • by Tim C (15259)

            Well it definitely doesn't say "the government" now, but thinking more about it I think you're probably right; I first applied for SC back in around 2001/2002 or so, and I do remember something about a question being odd.

    • by coofercat (719737)

      This might not be such a stupid idea as you might think.

      1) Report any and every website you can find, Labour.org.uk, conservatives.com, bbc.co.uk, itv.com, amazon.co.uk, ebay.co.uk, etc etc
      2) Repeat, but using tinyurl and other link squashers, proxies, caches, and any other form of URL mangling
      3) ???
      4) Collapse!

      There's a recaptcha on the submission page, which is a shame, otherwise I'd have had a script running already. Perhaps I should set up a "recaptcha for pr0n" or more appropriate perhaps, "recaptcha f

  • Wrong URL. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onion2k (203094) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:15AM (#31020604) Homepage

    I'm sure that should be http://ministry_of_love.direct.gov.uk/ [direct.gov.uk] .

    (If you've not read Orwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Love [wikipedia.org] )

  • by mayhem79 (891695) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:17AM (#31020612)
    What worries me is the term: 'intended to be useful to terrorists'; this is so broad a definition, in theory anything could be deemed as useful to terrorist. For example, how to fly a plane, how to drive a car, self defense techniques. It also concerns me what implications to freedoms this may have on non-violent polictical protest sites i.e. any site that may critise a governments policy. I am a UK citizen and am becoming increasingly worried as my freedoms are being slowly litigated for my 'own good' to combat terrorism. Reminds me of a joke on Red Dwarf: 'Report your friends, family and neighbours... wonderful prizes to be won.'
    • what implications to freedoms this may have on non-violent polictical protest sites i.e. any site that may critise a governments policy

      You need to read an article from The Register [theregister.co.uk] which points out that a LOT of the restrictions which apply to print media could be used to limit web-speech during a general election.

      The only reason we still appear to have a more-or-less free society is that the government (whichever colour we have/will-have) have not yet chosen to enforce the laws they have already put in place.

      • by Tim C (15259)

        So how would you combat the potential problem of groups (or individuals) with large sums of money seeking to influence an election in the immediate run-up to it?

        Or would you not, and let anyone do, say or print whatever they want, and if it sways the result then so be it?

        (Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested - although at the moment, I'm leaning in favour of preventing e.g. Murdoch using the Sun to try to swing the result in the way he wanted it to go)

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:22AM (#31020626) Homepage

    These laws make it illegal to have or to share information intended to be useful to terrorists, and ban glorifying terrorism or urging people to commit terrorist acts.

    I would hazard to guess based on the media reports that Britain's radical Muslim problem is only topped by the Netherlands (where prominent critics of Islam have been routinely murdered or credibly threatened with murder). There was even a survey done of the British Muslim population that said that about 40% of the young Muslims in the country want to live under Sharia.

    The British government is going to have to start rounding up the radical clerics and deporting them. Hell, banish them from the United Kingdom altogether. The problem is, they know they'll inflame a lot of anti-British sentiment if they do that. Then they'll have to either start cracking skulls left and right or start en masse rounding up and deporting the Muslims who go to those mosques, deport them and put a marker on them that permanently marks them as a ne'erdoweller who has no business ever setting foot on British soil again.

    The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt. The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily.

    The political correctness of the British government is not doing genuine moderate Muslims any good because it's creating an environment where the extremists can thrive under "diversity" and the native population can be slowly radicalized against the entire immigrant population starting from the working class up (IIRC, the British working class were the primary support behind the BNP when it recently won a small, but worrisome amount of the vote for the first time).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "The British government is going to have to start rounding up the radical clerics and deporting them. Hell, banish them from the United Kingdom altogether. The problem is, they know they'll inflame a lot of anti-British sentiment if they do that. Then they'll have to either start cracking skulls left and right or start en masse rounding up and deporting the Muslims who go to those mosques, deport them and put a marker on them that permanently marks them as a ne'erdoweller who has no business ever setting fo

      • You obviously have little experience having to live in the same neighbourhood as rude and hostile Muslim immigrants. Try it sometime and then get back to me.

        • "You obviously have little experience having to live in the same neighbourhood as rude and hostile Muslim immigrants. Try it sometime and then get back to me."

          I have lived in areas with immigrants (Finsbury Park in London and Radford in Nottingham, for example) and even areas where there were community tensions. I'm just not xenophobic, so I talked to people, engaged them as humans and made friends.

          Humans are pretty much humans, and to demonise an entire class of people
          a) isn't that productive no matter who

          • by Viol8 (599362)

            "multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London."

            Why exactly?

            "Why would you want to have less variety?"

            Why would you want more? I want my country to be my country , not some tower of babel style zoo.

            The wonders of multiculturalism is a load of BS. Its a tired old mantra that gets wheeled out like a wheezing geriatric whenever some lefty (and more often that not a young one with fuck all life experience) wants to put a positive spin on separate cultures living apart in the same

            • "Why would you want more? I want my country to be my country , not some tower of babel style zoo. The wonders of multiculturalism is a load of BS. Its a tired old mantra that gets wheeled out like a wheezing geriatric whenever some lefty (and more often that not a young one with fuck all life experience) wants to put a positive spin on separate cultures living apart in the same country. Well I live in london mate , i was born here and IMO multicuturalism is NOT a benefit. The majority of english (whats le
          • I think multiculturalism is a mixed bag. I've seen it work spectacularly well where I've worked and studied, where (admittedly, middle-class) people of all colours and creeds work together and all have something to contribute. Then I've seen it work poorly, like on the streets of where I live here in London, where there's obviously a lot of hostility, distrust and social dysfunction, and where a lot of the people have nothing at all to contribute to society (or rather, "contribute" by stirring trouble and

          • You also miss the point that multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London. Why would you want to have less variety?

            The problem is that "variety" that includes new and exciting opportunities for assaults against my person and property aren't the kind of variety I'm looking for.

            Having the rape rate of my neighborhood tripled in exchange for a few new dishes to excite the yuppie palate doesn't seem like an advantageous trade-off to me.

          • You also miss the point that multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London. Why would you want to have less variety?

            That used to be one of the great selling points of Sarajevo. Didn't work out too well, did it?

            • "That used to be one of the great selling points of Sarajevo. Didn't work out too well, did it?"

              Are you suggesting this is likely in London? Because the BNP can muster 12000 members nationwide in a population of 60 million. A short war, then.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ultranova (717540)

        Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!

        Nice strawman. Do you realize that you just validated the grandparent's point? He talks about deporting immigrants who've expressed hostility towards their host culture, some to the point of committing crimes, even murder, and you come out and call him a nazi. That gives him the option of either giving up - which, in his view, results in his nation getting destroyed - or moving towards more radical methods.

        Congratulations. You've prevented the matte

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          "Nice strawman. Do you realize that you just validated the grandparent's point? He talks about deporting immigrants who've expressed hostility towards their host culture, some to the point of committing crimes, even murder, and you come out and call him a nazi. That gives him the option of either giving up - which, in his view, results in his nation getting destroyed - or moving towards more radical methods."

          No, no he doesn't. He says:

          "The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly c

          • "So how is this not advocating deporting 40% of the population?"

            Islamic population, to be clear.

          • by malkavian (9512)

            Have a look at the religion to immigration statistics for the UK. The indiginous population has a phenomenally small fraction of Muslims. The predominant religion is Christianity (primarily Church of England, then Catholicism). A secular stance is being take by an increasing proportion of the population (primarily indiginous). The increase in Muslim faith is by the huge part from immigrants within the last 30-40 years (1 generation).
            As was stated, nice straw man. Use one set, and ignore that to the lar

      • Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!

        I bet you actually think that that was an intelligent response!

        Your entire response below to benjfowler is indicative of how you missed my point which is that ignoring the radicals imperils those who are genuine moderates. They are the ones who get caught in the middle. The British government should infiltrate radical mosques and monitor them. Over time, if the agents feel that the congregation is too radical, identify the non-citizens and mark

        • OK...a more reasoned response for you.

          "The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily."

          This is an attempt to shift the blame to those you wish to expel for the actions against them. You state that you wish to 'cut out' any part of t

      • by VShael (62735)

        Do you know if this plan has ever been tried before?

        I vaguely recall hearing something about this before. Apparently it's a good way to get out of a recession too, and reduce unemployment.
        But when I went to look for information about, none of my state approved history texts had anything to say. And all the websites google was pointing me to, appeared to be down. I wonder if the problem is with my ISP...

      • Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!

        I'd prefer that to having them make me wear a yellow crucifix. How's Sharia law, honor killings and terrorist bombings working out for Britain?

        “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle”

        -- Louis Veuillot

    • by FourthAge (1377519) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @07:03AM (#31020794) Journal

      It's a very difficult problem, and the response of the three major parties is "Denial". All three say "Immigration and Islamisation are not a problem. We will not even consider them as issues. P.S. You are a racist." I see you have already been called a Nazi for posting this.

      Which is ironic, because your post is a warning about the Nazis in their BNP form. The National Socialists recognise and acknowledge the issues that the main parties do not. They are capitalising on the refusal of the main parties to talk about the issues.

      I think it is obvious now that the multiculturalism policy of the UK government has been a complete disaster. It's created ghettos. Entire cities like Birmingham and Bradford are divided by ethnic groupings. It's encouraged fear and hatred between the groups, fueling terrorism. It's exactly what should never have happened.

      Immigrants should have been welcomed into Britain provided that they were willing to merge into the existing culture and society, as many immigrants are. But instead, they were encouraged to be separate from the existing societies. Ghettos were created, and any concern about the ghettoisation process was dismissed by the UK Establishment as "racism", even though the concerns were well-founded. And it's not just the UK. The same problems exist in France for the same reason.

      It is time to abandon cultural relativism, the idea that each culture - each approach to life - is just as valid as any other. It is simply nonsense. Some cultures are inherently better than others. Absolute comparisons are possible and useful.

      The UK Establishment tells us that such comparisons are "racist" - but why? What is racist about comparing one society and another? Racism is discrimination based on ethnic grouping, not discrimination based on social structure or cultural values.

      It is our duty to discriminate against the values and culture of dark age theocracies. We must not allow the civilisation we have built to be undermined by Sharia and the Middle Eastern dictatorships. The only way to do that is to stick up for what we have, and that means we must all be able to acknowledge that our ways are better.

      • by Viol8 (599362)

        "I see you have already been called a Nazi for posting this."

        Thats the default response from the liberal left - call someone you disagree with a nazi and attempt to shut down discussion. All it does is ferment resentment and drive the issue underground but they're unfortunately too dumb to realise this.

        • by VShael (62735)

          Thats the default response from the liberal left

          Hang on a moment. I'm a member of the liberal left, and what *I* see are constant reminders from right-wingers that nazi's, socialism, etc... are all products of the evil liberal left.

          The truth is, the left/right political spectrum is a very poor analogy for the real world, and too many people on BOTH sides simply hurl accusations at the other, whether they are nazi comparisons or not.

          You were called a Nazi, and yes, that was wrong. But you're equally as wron

          • by Viol8 (599362)

            "the left/right political spectrum is a very poor analogy for the real world,"

            Totally agree. But there is a certain group of people who hold certain social views who can be classed as liberal left.

            "You were called a Nazi, and yes, that was wrong"

            Actually it wasn't me.

            "But you're equally as wrong to claim that this is the default position of the left. It is not."

            Not old fashioned left wingers , thats why the new term liberal left was coined. In actual fact its really a combination of champagne socialists and

        • by sznupi (719324)

          Adding to what VShael said - you do realize that this might as well be a response from "radical right"? (or whatever the tag would be) It's just enough for them to be in the opposition to "Nazi" and hold views which could be described as far right, and you can certainly find many such people in this case.

  • New title (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:22AM (#31020628) Homepage

    This is a wonderful idea. Let's call the volunteer participants in this program Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter [wikipedia.org].

  • by Johnny Fusion (658094) <zenmondo@NOspam.gmail.com> on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:24AM (#31020636) Homepage Journal
    Apparently, owning a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook is a jailable offense. I therefore should report amazon.co.uk who sells it. And since its not limited to british sites, I am pretty sure I read on wikipedia the mechanics on how thermonuclear weapons work. At least 1940s/1950s era weapons. In a world where information is criminal, only criminals will have information.
  • Obviously, Linux undermines the capitalist way of life. Any website mentioning Linux would qualify!

    • by selven (1556643)

      Oh great, now you're going to get Slashdot taken down.

    • by pmontra (738736)

      Obviously, Linux undermines the capitalist way of life.

      Not more than any attempt at turning other goods or services into cheap commodities or making companies work on the development of common platforms or giving away something to sell something else. We might say that Linux is the very essence of capitalism.

      But I got your point about this idea of the UK government.

  • The 'freedom fighters' running up and down the English moor land playing with "blowpipes" to bring down Hinds.
    They where soooo cool back the and the SAS staff loved them long time.
    Once your in other peoples homes, riding around with explosives in local clothing and get caught, the locals tend to remember that.
    They tend to glorify that for generations, no outside help needed.
    Finding the (Force Research Unit?) pics on an Irish website is priceless (scroll down)
    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80163 [indymedia.ie]

    With
  • Sorted (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robably (1044462) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:32AM (#31020670) Journal

    These laws make it illegal to have or to share information intended to be useful to terrorists

    Check

    ban glorifying terrorism

    Check

    or urging people to commit terrorist acts.

    and check. [ntlworld.com]

  • tube (Score:4, Funny)

    by muckracer (1204794) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:32AM (#31020672)

    So I reported the Subway (The Tube in the UK) schedules as being dramatically helpful to terrorists. Not only to target the subway itself but they might use it to get to their unrelated targets. Coming to think of it, let's shut down all Internet access cuz who knows what them terrorists will use it for...

  • I know there's a lot of very idealistic and naive libertarians on Slashdot who chafe against anything that would even hint suppressing free flow of information, no matter how objectionable or subversive.

    But you all need to realise that when the rubber hits the road, idealism doesn't get you very far in the real world. Truth be told, the UK has a large problem with radical, violent, political Islam, and merely pussyfooting around, striving not to offend, and obsessing about theoretical and abstract notions

    • by Dunbal (464142)

      I heartily endorse any action taken to crack Islamist heads in the UK.

            This post has been reported to the UK police for inciting racial hatred...

              No it hasn't, but just see how this can turn ugly quickly. However you must remember that Britain (do everything the Muslims say) is not the same as France (ban the burkas).

    • But you all need to realise that when the rubber hits the road, idealism doesn't get you very far in the real world. Truth be told, the UK has a large problem with radical, violent, political Islam, and merely pussyfooting around, striving not to offend, and obsessing about theoretical and abstract notions of "rights" and "freedoms" -- and conveniently ignoring the obligations of EVERYONE to obey the law and behave like citizens -- will get us nowhere.

      In other words, the ends justifies the means. Who cares if you trample on the occasional freedom or two, if it means you can look like you're trying to catch the boogaboo-of-the-month (terrorist, pedophile, communist). Because, you know, getting people to dob in websites is going to really put a dent in terrorist activities. All those terrorist organisations with military training camps in the Middle East won't have a clue what to do if we take down all the websites about how to make Molotov cocktails.

    • by ultranova (717540)

      I know there's a lot of very idealistic and naive libertarians on Slashdot who chafe against anything that would even hint suppressing free flow of information, no matter how objectionable or subversive.

      I protest you using "libertarian" to describe someone believing in freedom of speech. "Libertarian" nowadays means completely unregulated capitalism. It has nothing to do with rights or freedoms, except property rights and the freedom from taxes.

      But you all need to realise that when the rubber hits the road

    • by Nathrael (1251426)
      But censorship does not help curb terrorism. Censorship works great for steering popular opinion, but not for dealing with radical elements. Joe Citizen may be put off by a huge flashing sign displaying "This website contains information deemed possibly useful to terrorists, GTFO", but Achmed Terrorist will just find a way around it (or ask his nice friends in the middle east to send him some bomb building manuals or whatnot).

      If you want to combat terrorism, you have to fight it at it's root: take out radi
  • Website Captcha Fail (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LingNoi (1066278)

    The worse part about this site is that they have recaptcha on it but verify the request in javascript.

    Hence you can stick this request on your spam bot...

    https://reporting.direct.gov.uk/bin/submitter.php?report_type=1&report_url=reporting.direct.gov.uk&report_desc=GeorgeOrwellWasRight [direct.gov.uk]

  • by Pecisk (688001) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:43AM (#31020716)

    ...after you're already slipping, can you?

    This will a) provide nothing b) will destroy a lot c) won't cure paranoia

    Dear God help us.

  • by Grundlefleck (1110925) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:51AM (#31020750)
    FTFA:

    Content deemed illegal by the U.K. includes videos of beheadings, messages that encourage racial or terrorist violence and chat forums revolving around hate crimes, according to information on Direct.co.uk.

    (emphasis mine)

    YouTube comments, anyone?

  • by Tim C (15259) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @08:19AM (#31021258)

    Could everyone stop it with the "ooh, X is useful to Terrorists, let's ban that!!1!" comments?

    I'm as uncomfortable about some of the ramifications of this law as anyone else here, but the key phrase you're all ignoring is intended to be.

    Wikipedia, the Tube, etc - all useful to terrorists, not intended to be useful to terrorists, not illegal.

    A site enabling people to donate money, time, etc to terrorist causes - useful to terrorists, intended to be useful to terrorists, illegal.

    Now please, by all means rail against the possible civil liberties violations, potential for misuse and abuse, etc, but let's not rewrite the law so it says something other than what it does. Doing so, and complaining about things that are not covered by it only harms otherwise legitimate complaints and concerns and makes those working against it look foolish and thus easier to dismiss.

  • "...ban glorifying terrorism or urging people to commit terrorist acts."

    Then since the material at http://www.2020tech.com/thanks/temp.html [2020tech.com] describes a group of people who committed multiple acts of terrorism, it would have to go, along with any of the more sanitized versions such as are presented as childrens' plays all over the US yearly, since these romanticized versions 'glorify' their actions. How ironic that the descendants of these terrorists would pass a law banning their ancestors' story.

    === snippe

  • by gnarlin (696263) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @08:40AM (#31021422) Homepage Journal
    One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
  • There was a time when reporting your fellow citizens wasn't referred to as "crowd sourcing censorship".

    Hmm... when were the government advocating "denunciations" in Germany?

  • ... and does supporting protest of actions of the crown count as terrorism?

Hackers of the world, unite!

Working...