UK Government Seeks New Web Censorship Powers 187
oldandcold writes "Given the recent coverage and controversy over Australia's forthcoming web censorship system, it is somewhat surprising (and worrying) that Clause 11 of the UK's proposed Digital Economy Bill seems to have gone by largely unnoticed. It amends the Communications Act 2003 to insert a new section 124H that could give the Secretary of State powers to order ISPs to block pretty much any website for pretty much any reason. Such orders would not require the scrutiny of parliament, or anyone else for that matter, because the Secretary of State would not be required to publish them."
Bastards. (Score:5, Informative)
Fucking bastards.
Re:Another Brick in the Wall (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm really concerned about Britain. News seems to come in on a weekly or bi-weekly basis of new policing, security and other contractions of freedom.
At this rate it will only take 5 years or so before the British people are all housed in Barracks "for their own good" and working on prison factories! And we all know what comes next!
Well I'm exaggerating here, but for a point. I really hope everyone in Britain notices this trend and starts making some changes in their government now while they still can!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another Brick in the Wall (Score:4, Interesting)
What gets me is that Labour still keep chanting "Beware the Conservatives, they're the bogeyman. Evil. They'll take your rights away and make you miserable.".
All the while, they're taking your rights away. There's a whole load of stuff going down that just makes me wince (the whole register you need to be on if you have contact with anyone's kids more than once a week, otherwise you end up with a huge fine and jail time just as an example)...
This government we now have has been the most abusive, totalitarian nightmare that I can remember (and I'm 40, so can actually remember a fair bit)..
Re: (Score:2)
What gets me is that Labour still keep chanting "Beware the Conservatives, they're the bogeyman. Evil. They'll take your rights away and make you miserable.".
Which is quite true, after all they are British too...
It's in the genes man!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another Brick in the Wall (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Inch by inch, Britain sinks into the muck of totalitarianism. All for the common good.
I've found a method that shuts up those closet fascists who are willing to give away everyone's privacy etc. is to remind them that millions of people gave up their lives in the last century to protect the freedoms we have in the UK, and that what they are advocating is an insult to their memory.
It is utterly emotionally loaded, and even has a sub-text of war is good, meaning that authoritarians simply don't know what to say.
The most closed minded will still stick to their guns of censorship, submitting to authority, prohibition, etc., but it could work to change the views of a few.
Web sites on Double Secret Probation (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm...so you may not even know you have been banned....the great Internet wall of Britain?
Re:Web sites on Double Secret Probation (Score:5, Informative)
The man who will make the decisions is
1) Has been forced to resign twice
2) Does not hold any elected office
3) Popularly known as "the Prince of Darkness"
No, the last is not a joke - google for "mandelson prince".
Re: (Score:2)
question is if this is grandstanding to move the line of "acceptable". This so that something that would be just as outrageous before it, will now appear sane in comparison...
Re: (Score:2)
You might at least have tried to reference Hadrian's wall
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I've got a plan... (Score:3, Funny)
Move to CHINA.
At least there you'll have access to Socialist Propaganda!
You mean like Ireland's blasphemy laws? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ireland passed laws recently against uttering "blasphemy" and no one batted an eye...except on Twitter.
A lot of this is getting swept under the rug, and it both shocks and appalls me.
Nobody batted an eye? It was all over the news!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You mean like Ireland's blasphemy laws? (Score:4, Informative)
It's ok - the US is screwed up in lots of places too. In the state of SC you cannot legally hold public office if you don't believe in a supreme being. It doesn't state any specific one (so whether you're Muslim/Christian/Hindu/etc you're covered), but if you're an admitted atheist you can't legally hold office.
It's one of those old laws, but still. Heck though nobody observed the law anymore, interracial marriage in South Carolina was technically illegal until 1998. And the vote to repeal it (again, in 1998)? Yeah, it did pass, but 38% voted AGAINST repealing the law.
I'm convinced that the world as a whole may just be too messed up to recover from.
Re: (Score:2)
In the state of SC you cannot legally hold public office if you don't believe in a supreme being. It doesn't state any specific one (so whether you're Muslim/Christian/Hindu/etc you're covered), but if you're an admitted atheist you can't legally hold office.
In the State of New York it's technically a misdemeanor to commit adultery.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The article from which it looks like you drew your facts is here [washingtonpost.com]. Also quoted therein:
"Atheists are now eligible to run for any office in South Carolina, which means the provision against atheists is unenforceable."
The only defense I can offer for over a third of the South Carolina legislature voting not to overturn their anti-miscegenation laws is that, since the legislation was elected democratically, perhaps the constituents of South Carolina have exactly the kind of government they deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually (though your link proved useful elsewhere in the thread) I was just quoting the atheist in office bit from memory. It's been an issue discussed in the state for years now.
The interracial marriage thing I also remembered but referenced Wikipedia for my actual numbers (I had thought the repeal of that law was actually more recent than 1998) :).
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you've been touched by His noodly appendage, you're good to go then!
Re: (Score:2)
sadly, this do not only apply for US, but also old world nations.
norway have some creepy old laws about what religion the people in office must be members off, altho they are mostly ignored these days. Still, there was a need to rearrange what office covered religious topics, as the one planned to take said office (shared with culture at the time) where not a member of any religion...
its a mess, and there are arguing on all sides about how to deal with it...
Re: (Score:2)
It was North Carolina, not South Carolina where holding public office required belief in God.
North Carolina IN ADDITION TO South Carolina. I've lived in SC all my life and the issue has come up several times.
For a specific reference, from the following article:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/herb_silverman/2009/12/atheists_in_office_deja_vu_all_over_again.html [washingtonpost.com]
"The constitutions of both North and South Carolina bar atheists from holding public office."
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the brave new world. Now, stop talking about it before we sweep you under the rug.
Democracy ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy ? (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Britain is totally still a Monarchy. The news won't shut up about Queen Elizabeth this and Prince Henry that.
I mean they don't even have a constitution, just a handful of scattered laws and judgements that would take ages to find if the need arises. How can you possibly be expected to fight for your democratic rights if you can't use the internet to look up which document it's even filed under?
In the infaliable United States Democracy (in which I do not reside) - those people have their democratic rights MEMORIZED, printed off, laminated, and FRAMED above their mantlepiece.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I know, it's just annoying how she still manages to make the front page being nothing more than a Celebrity that doesn't make movies or music.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I know, it's just annoying how she still manages to make the front page being nothing more than a Celebrity that doesn't make movies or music.
Like Paris Hilton?
Re: (Score:2)
Like Paris Hilton?
Sadly, Paris Hilton has been in many movies.
I've met both Paris Hilton and the Queen and I can safely say that I'd much rather be trapped in an elevator with the latter than the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure she made at least one movie.
Re:Democracy ? (Score:5, Informative)
" In the infaliable United States Democracy (in which I do not reside) - those people have their democratic rights MEMORIZED, printed off, laminated, and FRAMED above their mantlepiece. "
If only every citizen in the United States did this then the United States would be a somewhat decent country.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Britain is totally still a Monarchy. The news won't shut up about Queen Elizabeth this and Prince Henry that.
I mean they don't even have a constitution, just a handful of scattered laws and judgements that would take ages to find if the need arises. How can you possibly be expected to fight for your democratic rights if you can't use the internet to look up which document it's even filed under?
In the infaliable United States Democracy (in which I do not reside) - those people have their democratic rights MEMORIZED, printed off, laminated, and FRAMED above their mantlepiece.
You clearly don't know british history or political system. The UK is a constitutional monarchy which means that parliament is required for any laws to be put into place. It has been this way since the English civil war in which the monarch was overthrown, but eventually brought back but with reduced powers, hence why during the queens speech on the opening of parliament, ceremonies such as closing the house of commons door on black rod (the queens messenger) takes place to symbolise that the power really r
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that said speech is written by the ruling party in parliament, not by Her Majesty.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I just keep the Constitution on my iPhone. There's more than one app for that. I'm a lot more likely to have my iPhone on me than my mantlepiece when I want to consult the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
|| The United States Republic was much better. Though I have no idea where it went. ||
The last remnants of the United States Republic were vaporized by global warming -- er -- climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
You expect too much from Democracy.
The UK, America and Australia, seem to be dead set on burying themselves under censorship and screwed up IP laws.
If China decides one day, that it can have social stability without the censorship, I fear we (Western civilization) are going to get pwned.
Re: (Score:2)
Labour were elected by 22% of eligible voters. Worse than that, in England the Tories got more votes than Labour, but the English still got a Labour government because of votes from Scotland and Wales, which now have their own Parliaments.
No party in the UK can get a majority of the votes because they're all useless. And, in any case, most of the laws now come from Brussels, not London.
A preview of "net neutrality" (Score:2)
Just think, there are people who want to hand over regulation of internet traffic to the government under the name of "net neutrality," yet here we have a government proving that it would happily censor content. Imagine what would happen once lobbyists convinced bribed politicians to regulate things like torrent traffic in order to prevent "economic terrorism."
Stop mischaracterizing net neutrality. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just think, there are people who want to hand over regulation of internet traffic to the government under the name of "net neutrality," yet here we have a government proving that it would happily censor content. Imagine what would happen once lobbyists convinced bribed politicians to regulate things like torrent traffic in order to prevent "economic terrorism."
the concept of net neutrality is to legislate specifically to PREVENT abuses like the one this politician is trying to perpetrate.
Note: he still has to go through the legislature, but ISP's already do this unilaterally whenever they think they can get away with it, and in the US Comcast is suing agains the FCC to keep them from preventing Comcast from butchering traffic.
Hard-right libertarians don't seem to understand: This is not the pre-industrial era anymore! Royalty no longer controls the economy. Corp
Re: (Score:2)
I know what the intent is supposed to be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Giving the government control of the internet would lead to censorship abuses like those in this article. An ISP is a private entity and is free to filter its own traffic however it wants.
Re: (Score:2)
An ISP is a private entity and is free to filter its own traffic however it wants.
Why? The telephone companies aren't allowed to. Has the regulation of the telephone network led to censorship abuses?
So much for being anti-censorship anyway. Apparently it's only evil if it's the government doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
there is commercial censorship, and there is political.
net neutrality deals with the former, not the latter, as the latter is better covered mechanisms already in place (like say freedom of speech, wherever that concept applies).
Re:Democracy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Where's your comparison with these other European countries?
Well, for one, here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index [wikipedia.org] UK ranks 21st overall, and there are 13 European countries above it. The rankings are from a UK based organization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like how we're listed as a full democracy in the UK on that list.
How can a first past the post system like ours possibly be a full democracy, it's barely a democracy at all, realistically we're a dictatorship with the difference between our dictatorship and others being that the minority that installs ours elects him in rather than installs him through violence.
To put into context what I mean, from the electoral reform society 19 million votes by UK voters had absolutely no effect on being able to drive B
Re: (Score:2)
You left out that the UK is probably the European country least affected by the French revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
but it's democratic in so far as you get to tick a box and stick it in the ballot box, the chance of you being one of the people whose tick actually counts for anything though is, well, going by the last election, only 35%.
Surely your vote is always meaningless in that sense, in that it only matters if there's a tie, which almost never happens, even with PR. For every election I've voted in, I can honestly say that the outcome would have been the same if I hadn't voted. The same is true for pretty much ever
Re: (Score:2)
No, using the last election that the AC mentioned as an example, he said the opposition got 33% and 22% of popular vote. Effectively all these people (55% of voters) made a vote that had no effect whatsoever, because they didn't get as high a number as Labour who got 35% and hence took all the power.
This happens because 35% of the vote was enough to win something like 60% of MPs (I can't remember the exact numbers), and as such 35% of the vote gave them a majority in parliament to allow them to unilaterally
Not required to publish (Score:3, Funny)
Not required to publish? That's nothing. In the next planned amend the Secretary of State won't even have to know.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought complete ignorance of their own actions was a mandatory part of the MP specification anyway.
I love transparency! (Score:2, Insightful)
I love it. I really do.
And despite the fact that many would argue that any censorship is wrong, the distasteful part of these initiatives, the part that really cannot tolerate debate, is the lack of transparency.
I don't care for censorship, but I'm willing to listen if you say it's necessary. I'll probably tell you to screw, but I'll at least listen.
However, if you don't even bother to solicit opinion, or make yourself accountable to scrutiny, that's unacceptable, in a way that any normal, well adjusted i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I bet you like PNGs a lot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But while you are listening to them rant about saving the children from paedophile-terrorist-aliens the nice men in white coats can circle around behind them and catch them more easily!
More seriously though: they should be listened to because then you can point out the flaws in their position. I have spoken to a number of "[c]ensorship advocates" who simply didn't understand the implications and were more than happy to change their position when spoken to reasonably. Of course some will be beyond reason or
So What are they REALLY after? ACTA? (Score:3, Insightful)
We all know this kind of outrageous proposal won't fly, so what's the next "iteration" this will be compared to to make it look "reasonable"? The question is what are these people actually after?
It seems like this is yet another maneuver to "Frame" the debate around the upcoming ACTA clauses.
If enough of these outrageous ideas are being proposed, a simple removal of service for "egregious offenders" will look tame.
Remember, you have to boil the frog SLOWLY, and part of that involves acclimating the frog to heat before it goes in the pot!
This isn't even the worst part of the proposal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ability to impose arbitrary duties on anyo
Re: (Score:2)
In short, passing this proposal would give Lord Mandelson a complete dictatorship over the UK.
"Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot.
I know of no reason,
The Gunpowder Treason,
Should ever be forgot."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's been forced to resign once and fired for fraud. After that he was effectively banned from standing as a member of parliament. As such, he was given a job in europe. But Brown being a corrupt douche wanted him back, and so gave him the lordship and hence a seat in the House of Lords. That enabled brown to hire him as business secretary, but he still has no power, merely taking an advise
The offending piece: (Score:5, Informative)
I'm usually sceptical about /. summaries and their accuracy, so I looked a little deeper into this one before commenting.
From the parliamentary document:
124H Obligations to limit internet access
20 (1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—
(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under section 124G; or
25 (b) any other consideration.
The "any other consideration" part is what would concern me. Yup, this looks like the real deal. Gives the SoS a lot of power with little oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Overall this is truly an evil piece of legislation and I sincerely hope it doesn't pass (though I don't hold out much hope). It is full of these so-called "Henry VIII clauses" (a favourite device of Labour's) which grant huge lawmaking powers to the Secretary of State. Even where it is explicit, there is nothing good in it at all.
If you look into the definition of "technical obligation", it includes the ability for the Secretary of State to not only block particular sites but to ban an individual from the i
ObHistoricalQuote (Score:2)
This means... (Score:2)
We need a distributed fragmented encrypted layer (Score:2)
To maintain some semblance of freedom of communication,
we will probably have to try to standardize on a thin layer over current
net protocols which provides:
1. Encryption of transmitted data routinely
2. Encryption on disk of data
3. Distribution of any particular "page" of data into many
redundant encrypted fragments around the world that know how
to coalesce on demand.
4. Automatic mobility of such data fragments, such that they
migrate, and seek newer and more reliable storage for themselves.
5. DHTs for finding
Re:We need a distributed fragmented encrypted laye (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not so sure about that one. I mean, they keep getting the news all wrong, do you really want them to route your information?
I am shocked (Score:3, Interesting)
Good god. (Score:2)
I should complain (Score:3, Interesting)
... being as I live in the UK. But frankly, why bother?
My local MP is a Labour MP, and (like many Labour MPs) has never voted against anything dreamt up by the party leadership in her life. They could put forward a bill which puts under 18's to death by torture for jaywalking and she'd probably vote for it.
The only silver lining is that this parliament will be cut short by a general election next year, which with any luck will get shot of Labour for a nice long time.
Re: (Score:2)
This hasn't gone unnoticed (Score:4, Informative)
My MP received a telephone call followed up by an email from me 3-4 weeks ago on this matter.
The Open Rights Group (at http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ [openrightsgroup.org]) have promoted a campaign for their members and supporters to raise this not only to MPs but also to members of the House of Lords.
This is yet another draconian and easily abused piece of legislation that is declared as addressing something that isn't an issue, in a manner that allows its use for other purposes while failing to address the underlying issue in the first place.
I'm fucked off about it, but frankly there's not a whole lot more I can peacably do.
+1 DoublePlusGood (Score:2)
IngSoc is now free from crimethink.
Is there ANY country that isnt doing this crap? (Score:2)
Is there ANY country that one could move to that has no civil liberties or human rights violations?
Many of the things that western governments are doing in the name of fighting terrorists/child porn/drugs/criminals/etc are just as evil as the likes of the GESTAPO, STASI, KGB or any of the other major secret police organizations of the 20th century's great dictatorships.
Not entirely unnoticed (Score:2, Insightful)
For the record, this clause didn't go completely unnoticed; it was spotted by the UK Pirate Party [pirateparty.org.uk] in their draft analysis [pirateparty.org.uk] (disclaimer: yes, I wrote most of that).
The entire clause [parliament.uk] reads:
124H Obligations to limit internet access
(1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—
(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under section 124G; or
(b) any other consideration.
(2) An order under this section must specify the date from which the technical obligation is to have effect, or provide for it to be specified.
(3) The order may also specify—
(a) the criteria for taking the technical measure concerned against a subscriber;
(b) the steps to be taken as part of the measure and when they are to be taken.”
A "technical obligation" is defined in the previous clause as an obligation on an ISP to impose a "technical measure" on a subscriber. The "technical measures" are also defined as something that limits the speed, blocks content, disconnects the user completely or "limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way".
Huh? (Score:2)
Your statement is contradictory..
The list probably won't include porn, so that's a good thing. However, it will probably include hate sites. This makes it a serious crackdown on the freedom of speech. It's exactly this kind of thoughtcrime persecution that our American founders fled from those 250 years ago.
if americans had to flee from (and then rebel against) this persecution, how were they "cool" before? Are we going back to the days of stone henge?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Americans fled from Europe in general, not just England.
Also, UK != England != Great Britain != British Isles.
Re: (Score:2)
The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and over six-thousand smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also include the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.
Though a lot of people get upset about including Ireland (ROI, not Northern Ireland) as part of the British Isles for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course how do you define "Hate Site"?
A site that denounces Global Warming could be described as being a hate site.
Who decides what is hate and what isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened? We voted Labour thinking they could not possibly be worse than the conservatives, and they were determined to prove us wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, under the Conservatives in the 90s, there was civil freedom, a truly successful economy (for the first time since the second world war) and (mostly) respect for the individual. New Labour took it all away in exchange for "benefits for all."
I do lean a bit right, but I don't consider myself a rampaging conservative.... but regardless I have to say that the UK today seems hell-bent on proving Alexis De Tocqueville's statement: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exis
Re: (Score:2)
or they could actually give rights to their citizens by doing nothing at all in regard to censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
or they could actually give rights to their citizens by doing nothing at all in regard to censorship.
Maybe they could give them back their guns and right to remain silent while they are at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Australia it's the religious people who are the biggest supporters of censorship. I wonder why?
Re:What happened to you, UK? You used to be cool (Score:5, Informative)
The UK used to be cool?
When was this, when it was occupied by the Romans?
Much more recently than that. During the Little Ice Age, when the Thames froze over. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/The_Frozen_Thames_1677.jpg [wikimedia.org] Since then, it's been a progressive loss of cool and loss of reason, reaching to today's hideous macchiavelian antics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Non-man-made climate change is a myth by the oil industry. London was only cold because mankind didn't burn much coal back then and it was great. Let's spend some trillions to go return to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it was cool in the 60s. That's what everyone says, but I missed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it was cool in the 60s. That's what everyone says, but I missed it.
Yeah, baby!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At least Australia got the prisoners. Why the Fuck did we have to get the religious nuts???
In related news: Oral Roberts is dead. Which raises the question: Why, God? Why is Pat Robertson still alive??? Bill Hicks is dead at 36, and that rat fucker is still alive at 79? I thought you were supposed to be a just God? What the fuck are you doing here???
Re:What technical obligation to ISPs? (Score:5, Insightful)
We are running out of countries to route our traffic through, quickly.
Well, lets adapt Niemoller for a second:
When they came for China, I chose a proxy in Australia to route around.
When they came for Australia, I chose a proxy in the UK to route around.
When they came for the UK, I chose a proxy in the USA to route around.
When they came for the USA, there was no country left to route through and all my complaints were met with 404s.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Canada, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
These types of bans will hardly hurt us, only slow us down. NOW, if they make encryption illegal and check at the packet level we are fucked. But I think that won't happen with the political climate. However I do think if big eng
Re:What technical obligation to ISPs? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet Genie is being put back in the bottle. As it became a medium of the masses, governments finally turned their attentions towards what used to be a tolerated eccentricity of academics and computer geeks. When Aunt Tillie began watching YouTube videos, censorship of the new medium was never going to be far behind.
The vast majority of people in democratic countries wholeheartedly support censorship. You don't even have to pull the terrorism of paedophilia cards. Hell, just mentioning anorexia sites will be enough to get 50% of people to express views along the lines of "They should be shut down." Thrown in bomb making and "extreme" pornography you'll get another good 25%. Piracy will net you another 10% more. Now; break out the child molesters and you can say goodbye to an uncensored net by the end of the week.
We live in democracies. That means we are subject to the will of the majority. And if the majority say the net should be censored, then that's what is going to happen, and that is what is happening.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The best thing is, Japanese routers have lots of tentacles to connect to other routers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like we're "allowing" it. We've got an unelected Prime Minister who appointed an unelected (and twice resigned) megalomaniac as Secretary of State (amongst other things) and a population who are largely technically illiterate and apathetic about everything that doesn't involve the X-Factor.
In short, we're buggered until at least May (when the next lot will at least have to pretend to do what they promised during the elections for 6 months or so).