Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Wants ISPs To Be Responsible For Third Party Content Online

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the damned-by-association dept.

Privacy 158

An anonymous reader writes "A key UK government minister, Ed Vaizey (Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries), has ominously proposed that internet service providers should introduce a new Mediation Service that would allow them the freedom to censor third party content on the Internet, without court intervention, in response to little more than a public complaint. Vaizey anticipates that Internet users could use the 'service' to request that any material deemed to be 'inaccurate' (good luck with that) or privacy infringing is removed. No doubt any genuine complaints would probably get lost in a sea of abuse by commercial firms trying to attack freedom of speech and expression."

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You got it all wrong! (4, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084726)

You need to think of this from the child's point of view! We are doing this to protect THEM!

Re:You got it all wrong! (1)

Rinnon (1474161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084756)

Yes, because who better than your ISP to protect your children from the dangers of the Internet.

Re:You got it all wrong! (2, Funny)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084982)

Stop kidding yourself, there is nothing dangerous or offensive on the internet.

Seriously though, I think that you shouldn't try to protect your kids through blocking but instead by teaching them how to get around said blocks... umm... I mean teaching them how to use the internet safely.

Re:You got it all wrong! (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085562)

Stop kidding yourself, there is nothing dangerous or offensive on the internet.

Stop kidding yourself, and show your kids some Goatse or Zippocat. That said, the "dangerous or offensive" nature does not come from the internet, and is by no means exclusive to it.

For example, when I was 6, I was told there was an invisible man in the sky who drowned all the puppies in the world (except two), and that this was a good thing.

Re:You got it all wrong! (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086552)

Note to self: Do *not* google Zippocat!

Re:You got it all wrong! (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085748)

Not to hijack your comment, but is there a quote source that specifically talks about ISP's? The article says ISP's, but the quotes from the minister make it sound more like a person-to-content-creator system. If Wired says something wrong, there would be a standardized way to complain to Wired. That sort of thing.

Re:You got it all wrong! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087152)

The article says ISP's, but the quotes from the minister make it sound more like a person-to-content-creator system.

He's a government minister, he probably uses the two terms interchangeably.

Re:You got it all wrong! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085532)

iwantapony

Re:You got it all wrong! (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085980)

You need to think of this from the child's point of view! We are doing this to protect THEM!

Scrap that. We need to protect the internet FROM them!

Re:You got it all wrong! (2, Funny)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086040)

I agree. Protect the kids.

And they will enjoy the no more "Santa Claus" or "Easter Bunny" or any other "inaccurate" societal figures like God. Or is that Mohammed? Or Jehovah? Fox News will be banned in the UK?

Who decides what is an inacurrate fact?

Re:You got it all wrong! (2, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086402)

Money.
Money will decide what is an inacurrate fact.

Which attacks on freedom of speech? (3, Insightful)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084762)

Why would we worry about this facilitating attacks on free speech? It is one in itself. Allowing random third parties to censor speech is not free speech. Better is to allow the ISPs at their option to pull content they believe their customers posted in bad faith, which responsible ISPs did with regularity in the US before doing so made them responsible when they missed a case of it. ISPs don't want to be known for hosting BS sites, but several governments have made it easier to take all hands off user content than to enforce reasonable terms of service with meaningful thought and constraint. The US is among those, and I'd bet the UK is as well.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085088)

Better is to allow the ISPs at their option to pull content they believe their customers posted in bad faith, which responsible ISPs did with regularity in the US before doing so made them responsible when they missed a case of it.

I'm not sure that is better at all. Either an ISP has an editorial function, or it does not. If you want to claim that you are not responsible for any content you carry, then act as a common carrier (or whatever your jurisdiction calls it) and don't actively read, alter, moderate or otherwise influence the data you carry. If you want to have the rights to scan or edit data passing through your network on an individual basis, based on the decisions of your own staff or the commercial agreements you choose to make to promote some content over other content, then you are no longer a mere conduit, and you must expect to be held accountable for the content you provide and any privacy violations that occur when you read data you shouldn't. I don't see how any middle ground in the legal position is not wide open to abuse, even if some responsible staff at some ISPs would not in fact abuse it.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (3, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085380)

Personally I'm still waiting for the ISP to begin to strongly respond that this is not in their best interests.

At the minimum they will need to monitor all their customers. At the maximum the copyright barons want the ISPs to kick "infringers" off of the Internet.

When will the ISPs realize that for every person they kick off the Internet thats another person not paying them a monthly fee. If they have to dump 10% of their customers, they'll lose 10% of their revenue. This is not a good idea for the ISPs, its suicide.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (3, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086118)

You forget the ISP business model; promise the moon on a stick, expect to only have to deliver a small balloon.

Kicking off the 10% that actually use their 'unlimited - fair use limit applies' account means they can delay that upgrade for another couple of years, as hey, grandma using email and facebook doesn't exactly strain the uplinks the way the rapidshare and bittorrent guys do.

And being told to do so by the government because that customer was accused of copyright infringement by an upstanding and honest company like ACS:Law, means they don't get sued by their customers for breach of contract! Marvellous, eh.

No, what the ISP objects to with the 3 strikes-style laws is it means they have to do more paperwork and hire more people to deal with it. If the copyright industry was bearing the costs, not the ISP, they'd kick heavy users off first chance they got.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (2, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085720)

I'm not sure that is better at all. Either an ISP has an editorial function, or it does not.

This is a bit black-and-white. ISP's host lots of data and services for customers, and there are many valid reasons to pull data or services.

1. Malware. If the service is causing problems for other ISP's and services, yours will be blacklisted. Get the malware off.
2. Overuse of limited resources. A script that is monopolizing the resources of a server will need to be dealt with.
3. Spam. ISP's hate spammers as much as everyone else, if not moreso, and for exactly the same reasons.
4. Legal tussles. Very few ISP's look forward to getting pulled into expensive legal battles. Part of the tradeoff with the DMCA in the US is that ISP's are explicitly not responsible for infringing material presuming they take content down promptly upon notification. Before the DMCA, ISP's were potential lawsuit targets.
5. Hack sources. Similar to Malware, but if one of your machines is hacking the ISP, you can bet it's getting booted off of the network.

Some ISP's refuse to host racist, sexual, or other types of websites for moral reasons. Also, depending on the inflammation level they tend to draw DDOS and hack attacks, which make it more difficult to conduct any business. While I tend to have problems with common carriers refusing to host information for moral reasons, there are currently no shortage of ISP's willing to do so. Most are pretty broad about what they will accept. So in practical terms it's not very problematic.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (4, Interesting)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086008)

Why?
Take a private citizen. There are, in some places, specific requirements for specific private citizens to report certain felonies, (i.e. a schoolteacher being required to report suspected child abuse) but they don't translate to those same entities having to report all misdemeanors, traffic violations and torts. So why should the standard for ISPs be so much all or nothing.
        There are also other cases where specific knowledge limits are observed by law. Somewhat to my shame, I once participated in a program where local law enforcement dogs were trained to sniff out drugs. I personally planted drugs in various containers (i.e wrap the brick of dope in three layers of oil soaked plastic, and stick it in the middle of a half full coffee container, seal it, put it on the highest kitchen shelf, wipe down the area, then see if the dog can alert on it when the handler didn't know where I hid it either and couldn't give the dog subconsious cues.). This included attending a controlled burn and such, so if I were to testify that I smelled Cannabis, it would count as expert testimony, and that testimony could not be impeached with questions about how I happened to know for sure that what I smelled was pot, say from an opposing lawyer. Most citizens can't make that claim - they either have to admit they know what pot smells like from illegal use, or all they can say is they thought whatever they smelled might be pot. I could theoretically be compelled to testify if subpoenaed, but most people can't. That pesky 'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' bit means, in the US at least, you don't generally have a legal obligation to say what you don't know to be true, but only suspect.
          In addition, most ISPs don't employ someone who could make a determination, say, whether a person in an erotic photo was of legal age or a year or two under, or whether those nuclear bomb diagrams have anything classified in them (or would even work) or not. Most ISPs don't employ anyone who is a recognized specialist in copyright law either. Yes, it can be argued that common knowledge should cause employees to suspect a current piece of popular music or TV show is copyrighted and a violation is likely taking place, but expecting that to translate to knowing the status of 30 year old TV shows or music is another story. There's also the normal limits of age and obscurity - a typical 20 year old may have no reason to know whether Woody Herman recorded that file in the 1990's or the 1930's, and a typical 50 year old may have no idea who A Flock of Seagulls or Front 242 was, let alone whatever's popular now. If a person has no idea if the music comes from a commercial source and not a garage band sharing its own files, how can the law demand that person follow up on suspicions they may simply not have?

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087156)

... Either an ISP has an editorial function, or it does not. ...

In the UK since the "Godfrey vs Demon" case in 2001, ISPs DO have an editorial function.

Whether that's a good idea or not is a different matter.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085142)

When did US ISPs ever make a habit of taking down their customer's websites? And who really believes this won't be used for joe jobs and overly aggressive corporations angry with bad reviews or their products? Are you really interested in paying your ISP to police your amazon.com reviews?

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (3, Interesting)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085752)

Back in the early days of commercial ISPs, when an ISP was an Internet Service Provider and not a phone company or cable company that drove the ISP specialist companies out of business, and when there weren't "safe harbor" and the DMCA, ISPs cared about the images of their respective companies and tried to do business with customers using the services legitimately.

ISPs would take down obviously scam sites when people complained not because they had to, but because they didn't want those sorts of sites on their servers or using their bandwidth. ISPs responded to complaints about email abuse. ISPs would cooperate openly with law enforcement when they wanted to stop a specific crime and would tell the officers to take a hike until they had a subpoena when their was a fishing expedition for user data.

How do I know this? I worked in the field as an employee and a consultant for a number of ISPs back when an ISP was a service provider like the name implies rather than a utility trying to charge extra for certain data.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086264)

Back in the early days of commercial ISPs, when an ISP was an Internet Service Provider and not a phone company or cable company that drove the ISP specialist companies out of business, and when there weren't "safe harbor" and the DMCA, ISPs cared about the images of their respective companies and tried to do business with customers using the services legitimately.

ISPs can still do that.
Everyone signs a ToS/contract to receive hosting or internet service and the ISP can use that to cut them off.

But allowing a 3rd party to force that to happen without any due process is a terrible idea.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086926)

The problem is that the small ISPs are pretty much gone, replaced by huge companies...
The cost of reading abusemail when you have thousands of customers is huge, so those costs are cut and abuse mails are ignored.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085620)

I would like to complain about Ed Vaizey's opinion about public forums. Where do I go to censor him?

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086668)

In the US you'd go to a gun show and get a high-powered rifle and a scope. The only kind of complaint that would be able to pierce his thick skull is a .308.

Re:Which attacks on freedom of speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086600)

allow the ISPs at their option to pull content they believe their customers posted in bad faith

ISPs don't want to be known for hosting BS sites

You're making the same mistake as that minister. ISPs do not host content, they provide a connection to a pool of content they have no control over. Nor should they have. If you don't like something you read in the newspaper, who do you make responsible? The kiosk owner? The papermill? Would you want these, or any institution that is not even publicly accountable, to censor the newspaper for you so nothing offensive will meet your eye?

Already done in Brazil (-1, Flamebait)

user14 (1932304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084764)

link here [goo.gl]

Good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34084808)

All sites promoting religion are inaccurate, many government sites are inaccurate and Mr Vaizey himself makes assertions which would be widely deemed as inaccurate.

Didcot's Got Talent

On Saturday, I was one of four judges judging Didcot talent at the Civic Hall. Two dance groups, two guitar soloists and three bands, and the winner was the Mojo Pins, who already have a demo tape out there. I judged with whispering Bob Harris of Old Grey Whistle Test fame, and he was brilliant. All the acts were outstanding, and even more impressive was the organisation by Didcot sixth formers, as part of their Young Enterprise project. Well done to all involved.

This is inaccurate, nobody with any "talent" is going to perform for a moron like Mr Vaizey. I demand this inaccurate blog posting [vaizey.com] be removed at once!

Notice from your ISP (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34084834)

We're sorry, but this comment contained inaccurate information which suggested that Ed Vaizey's new plan for the Internet was flawed. It has been removed for your safety. Have a nice day.

Third Party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34084846)

Isn't the Third Party in the UK the Liberals? And aren't they part of the governing coalition these days...

bwahhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34084858)

first to go should the political party/politician websites, tweets, face book pages!
Then all the advertising sites...
Then the trolls and astroturfers

I'm liking this law better all the time!

While we're at it, (1)

Merlin.T.Wizard (1893384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084904)

can we require the ISPs protect everyone from making stupid purchases online? Or hey how about requiring the ISPs to increase the average intelligence online? After all, all we have to do is demand it, right? They have to figure out how to comply. /sarcasm

Re:While we're at it, (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086942)

ISPs have long been decreasing the average intelligence online...
Years ago, you typically only had internet access if you were studying/working at a university, or a geek who knew how to configure pppd dialscripts and the like.

Material deemed inaccurate? (1, Troll)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084910)

Whatever happened to

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

???

Oh that's right, Voltaire was french - the UK government has never really liked any ideas that came from across the channel.

Re:Material deemed inaccurate? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085146)

Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

It was a cute sound bite but a dumb idea then, and it's still a cute sound bite but a dumb idea now.

Protecting political speech is one thing, but I have no intention of defending to the death your "right" to tell vicious lies about someone that destroy their life just because you have time/money/media control/influence that they do not and you happen not to like them.

This is why absolute free speech is a dumb idea, which in turn is why no country actually guarantees it in law.

Re:Material deemed inaccurate? (2, Insightful)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086372)

I don't mind if people get to spew out their hate speech - in fact I prefer it - it makes it easier for me to judge them correctly compared to if they were hiding their true beliefs behind a thin veneer of polite conversation.

If people want to blast their lies and propaganda out in all directions - I say let them - there are two sides to any story, and the other party will always have the ability to respond. In this sense, the internet is a great leveler - you don't have to be wealthy or have media influence to post out your ideas - why else do you think people like Rupert Murdoch are so terrified, and trying their best to wrest control of the current infrastructure?

Re:Material deemed inaccurate? (5, Informative)

WitnessForTheOffense (1669778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085730)

I may disagree with the veracity of your attribution, but I will defend to mild inconvenience your right to repeat a famous misquotation.

Voltaire didn't actually say that.

"The most oft-cited Voltaire quotation is apocryphal. He is incorrectly credited with writing, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” These were not his words, but rather those of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, written under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#cite_ref-18 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Material deemed inaccurate? (1, Funny)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086328)

Oh No! I posted something containing inaccurate content!
Quick! Where's the legislation to force slashdot to remove it????

Truth is stranger than fiction (4, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084924)

I am reminded of the world of Farenheit 451 and the plethora of Sci-Fi books and movies in which the Nazis won World War II. The free world is shackled with fascism on every level, censorship is enforced with capital punishment, and the secret police are in your head.

If truth really is stranger than fiction I can see Germany invading England again in the future to free the world of a great threat against freedom. In the end it will be like D-Day, but in reverse with a coalition of forces eating buttery croissants before leaving Normandy for the shores of England.

Re:Truth is stranger than fiction (5, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086482)

Pfft! I would like to see them TRY to invade England. Our mighty fleet of a handful of obsolescent fighting ships will easily fend off the invaders for the 60 years or so necessary for us to build up our power generating capacity to allow us to make steel (once we have rebuilt the steelworks) and buy back the industrial machinery we sold off abroad that we need to build that steel into tanks and ships (once we retrain all the brighter media studies graduates so they can add up and use a lathe). And it will be simple to flatten the flimsy chipboard houses (that replaced the factories) to make space for factories (and the rail network that got torn up and thrown away).

Don't worry all will be well. (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084966)

I can see it now:

Caller:
"...and yes what they are doing to that kitty cat is cruel! I mean the mean people don't even let the kitty know its a laser pointer dot and I just about cried after it ran into the wall!"

Support:
"Ma'am I know exactly how you feel as we get 'some' of these terrible reports every day. Unfortunately, however, we have already sent the data down the tubes and it could be any number of sub-tubes. I'll put a work order to have the tubes checked out but I cannot make any promises as they've been really clogged as of late."

Caller:
"Thanks!"

If this system is actually implemented I expect rampant abuse with comical results. (grabs popcorn...)

Re:Don't worry all will be well. (0, Offtopic)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085100)

Last night on /s/ somebody called for a chubby thread but some of the girls posted were positively anemic. This has to be stopped. Can the government help?

Bad title (2, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084976)

Ok, despite the fact that the UK like the USA is being run and held captive by complete morons with only self-enrichment at all costs in mind, this is 1 guy. One guy does not equal the whole of the UK.

Re:Bad title (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086500)

Well, it depends if it is the one guy who gets to make a decision. We plebs don't get a say in the decisions or laws made, you know.

Isn't this like, Step 3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085000)

Entice the citizens to rat on each other for the benefit of the State?

Impressive Spin (4, Insightful)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085002)

I love the hyperbole online. The actual quote states that he was interested in

setting up a mediation service for consumers who have legitimate concerns that their privacy has been breached or that online information about them is inaccurate or constitutes a gross invasion of their privacy to discuss whether there is any way to remove access to that information.

. It's all there. A means by which a LEGITIMATE concern over SPECIFIC kinds of information is removed after a REGULATED PROCESS between parties. He's talking about asking the Daily Mail to remove that story where they accidentally labelled you a paedophile. Or that other one where your address is listed as the local supermarket. Or that other one where someone has posted a sample of the text messages you sent your wife. Or maybe even those pictures you forwarded to your entire address book accidentally.

This is a good thing. Aren't we always harping on about Facebook/Google deliberatly violating our privacy? This guy is suggesting a mechanism whereby that kind of privacy violation can be limited, and everyone immediatly leaps to censorship hysteria.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085026)

You mean like a cease and desist letter, or a lawsuit? I thought those existed already.

Re:Impressive Spin (2, Interesting)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085068)

I get the impression it was supposed to be a step below those options, a cheaper alternative that allows Joe sixpack the opportunity to gain the same protections online that major corporations with their huge legal departments benefit from.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085218)

You mean sort of like binding arbitration? That's one step below the court system as well, that never gets abused.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085280)

Yeah because we're completely overwhlemed by all those historic examples of the general public abusing industry via binding arbitration. Anyway this was proposed as mediation, not arbitration. The idea of the thing is to allow your average person to benefit from the legal protections that the rich and/or corporations already have mechanisms to exploit.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085530)

woosh.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086302)

The underlying problem is that the courts are too expensive, especially for things like libel, so why not deal directly with that?

Also, when you set up a mechanism like this, it will probably be used more by the rich than the general public.

The Magna Charta says "To no one will we deny justice". That means we should all have access to the same justice, not a cheap system anyone can use, with the rich getting the option of a luxury version.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086376)

You mean sort of like binding arbitration?

As I understand it, binding arbitration is not legally permissible in the UK. It is considered a fundamental right to have any legal dispute settled by a court of law. If you go through an arbitration process and disagree with the result, you can still take it to court.

Re:Impressive Spin (2, Interesting)

julesh (229690) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086358)

I get the impression it was supposed to be a step below those options, a cheaper alternative

So, something like a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office [ico.gov.uk] , then?

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086442)

I dont think so, solely because their mission statement [ico.gov.uk] (pdf) reads

"we are primarily concerned with regulating the processing of personal data by the state, by businesses and by other organisations."

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that the ICO deals with issues of personal data abuse by organizations that personally gathered it - like the government and tax info, or survey takers and demographics. The idea that was being discussed seems broader than that - permitting people to challenge the spread of personal info' in a wide range of areas. For instance TFA mentioned a Women's Shelter asking a website to deslist their address which had somehow been added to a database.

Re:Impressive Spin (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085180)

Sure they do, and they're just fine if you have more money than sense and your lawyer on speed dial. Here in the UK, however, we tend to consider formal court action a last resort, and to try to resolve things via less formal (and expensive and time-consuming) means first. Full legal actions are a significant hassle, the cost of which in time and/or money may be disproportionate to the damage caused even if the damage is real.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085772)

A notice letter is neither very expensive nor very much hassle. If they ignore a notice from a private person, have a lawyer send a notice. If they ignore the lawyer, file an action and have the court send a notice. There's a definite stepwise course that already can be used and makes plenty of sense.

If they ignore you and go all the way to court now, why would they pay any more attention if there was an official process to accept notices and ignore them?

Re:Impressive Spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086368)

Hello? UK means we don't solve things with cease and desists (if we even have them) and a ruddy lawsuit!
Can't we just politely fill in a form which says, "please stop posting my details online for random people to read"?
Wait...am I being trolled?

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086898)

no, this is more like skipping c&d and just going after the transmitted data. you know, to remove inaccurate information.

problem is, nobody is never quite sure what is what. some people think that gays couldn't have fun or that mentioning abortions is blasphemy or that just explaining how gunpowder works is inappropriate to have on the net.

archives of such things would naturally need to be censored too, otherwise it's still available. of course this proposition doesn't sound like it was thought up by anyone who actually knew how things work.

You are correct, everyone please read article. (-1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085110)

Slashdot is really going over the edge, the slightest movement that is even IMAGINED to be censorship is now deemed to be an urgent terror to those reading Slashdot. What has happened? I guess election season is driving people over the edge.

Re:You are correct, everyone please read article. (2, Insightful)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085266)

  • Kill it before it grows

Seriously folks, if we TERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE anything which even vaguely tries to be rampantly abusive of our privacy and general freedoms on the internet the world would be a better place. People would STOP AND THINK before they showed how completely deficient their thinking has become.

At some point you need to call for the ROFLCOPTER and wait for the sanity-police to come to the rescue.

Kill it before it grows, nuke it from space. Cancel his internet subscription, fire him from his portfolio, he's a complete and utter muppet and obviously has trouble tying his own shoes in the morning.

Re:You are correct, everyone please read article. (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085300)

Oh yeah, and when I say "TERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE" I mean that should be done to "thoughts, ideas, words, suggestions and recommendations" -> I do not mean we should do that to "people".

Re:You are correct, everyone please read article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085490)

Oh yeah, and when I say "TERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE" I mean that should be done to "thoughts, ideas, words, suggestions and recommendations" -> I do not mean we should do that to "people".

We weren't discussing abortion so WTF else would "kill it before it grows" refer to, if not ideas and such?

BTW the moment smart and wise people outnumber easily deceived yet cocksure idiots, that will be the moment I convert to a pro-life stance on abortion.

Re:You are correct, everyone please read article. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085624)

Seems like the parent was trying to find a way to deal with meaning manglers. It's getting so that you can't say anything poetically any more because if there is any ambiguity whatsoever in what you say, people will assume you meant whatever the most loathsome interpretation of it is, and proceed to marginalize you or justify something stupid over it.

Re:Impressive Spin (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085524)

He's talking about asking the Daily Mail to remove that story where they accidentally labelled you a paedophile. Or that other one where your address is listed as the local supermarket. Or that other one where someone has posted a sample of the text messages you sent your wife. Or maybe even those pictures you forwarded to your entire address book accidentally.

And how is your ISP going to do that? At best they could remove it if it's on a server on their network, otherwise you're SOL.

And in the case of the Daily Mail, what do you plan to do about all those evil people who have copies of the print version of the newspaper?

Re:Impressive Spin (3, Interesting)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085580)

Thats the great thing about TFA - the minister never mentions ISPs. He uses the Internet Domain Name charity as an example of a funtioning mediation service, thats it. From then on it's all about the internet industry, which includes every single online business out there. TFA claims this is about ISPs but frankly he's going off the exact same lack of info' that I am, only I'm using a little basic common sense and not surrendering to the hysteria. It appears simply that TFA is trying to drum up a little drama.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085590)

So why not do the same with all online media? Phone conversations: Real-time filtering of copyrighted material, trade marks and naughty words, and while we are at it, do the same with Radio, Television, Books and Newspapers... Yeah, that will work very well indeed.

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086610)

This is a good thing. Aren't we always harping on about Facebook/Google deliberatly violating our privacy? This guy is suggesting a mechanism whereby that kind of privacy violation can be limited, and everyone immediatly leaps to censorship hysteria.

Why can't we take then Facebook/Google to the court why we need to involve the ISPs? You can take any other company to the court what makes Google or Facebook so special that we need to have the ISPs involved?

You can already sue your Daily Mail or your local super market for slander and demand that they pay and remove the offensive content. What makes companies on the internet so special?

Re:Impressive Spin (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086676)

You can already sue your Daily Mail or your local super market for slander and demand that they pay and remove the offensive content.

Nitpick: Only if they say nasty things about you rather than print it. Libel is printed. Slander is spoken.

And Competition (1)

non-registered (639880) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085120)

Don't forget competition.

The bill will save some schools! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085234)

Schools like this Singapore school which claims that its "genuine" parents are "distressed" by the internet and they needed to do something about it. So they have engaged lawyers, of course paid for by the parents themselves without their consent (or manufactured consent).

Read at Techdirt: Indian School in Singapore sues parent for anonymous comments on his blog [techdirt.com]

I have been following this for a while. The most recent censorship attempt takes the form of a request to the CERT of India government to ban blogs in Singapore, Malaysia and India:
Techgoss story: Indian school asks CERT to ban three blogs in three countries [techgoss.com]

View the blogs before they are vaporized ! Archive them at your risk of course !
Blogs under censorship attack: Blog 1, from Singapore [blogspot.com] which is a "Parents Forum/Blog",
Blog 2, from Malaysia [blogspot.com] which is a "GIIS Malaysia Parents" blog, and
Blog 3, from India [blogspot.com] which is a "RSK Parents Forum" blog.

I am sure the school will argue that private education in India needs such drastic measures !

What the internet really is. (2, Insightful)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085344)

It seems to be lawmakers do not know what the Internet is. They need to understand that Internet does not actually exist, at least in the way they think.

It's one big dumb unified end-to-end communication network. What people think of as "Internet" such things like search engines, web sites and other forms content, are services provided by machines and real people who manage them on the other end of some tenous abstract link through a math address space. The internet itself is a pipe with no walls. It has no spacial volume - no memory, anything that falters in the tubes, after a while vanishes, never reaching it's destination.

Lawmakersm, please by all means make laws to go after those who do wrong, go after the actual criminals and their equipment.

But do not attack infrastructure, it's absurd.

ugg boots sale (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085398)

vwe sale the best air max shoes for you:

ugg boots sale [ugghomesale.com]
ugg boots sale shoes [ugghomesale.com]
ugg boots sale shoes news [ugghomesale.com]
ugg boots sale shoes blog [ugghomesale.com]
[url=http://www.ugghomesale.com//]ugg boots sale[/url]
[url=http://www.ugghomesale.com//]ugg boots sale[/url]
[url=http://www.ugghomesale.com//news.html]ugg boots sale news[/url]
[url=http://www.ugghomesale.com//blog/]ugg boots sale shoes blog[/url]
http://www.ugghomesale.com

Please extend this (3, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085434)

Please extend this to the phone companies and the postal service.

And yes, that was sarcasm.

Re:Please extend this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085716)

And yes, that was sarcasm.

Why do I get the feeling that the above statement is sarcastic.

Here's a better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085496)

Make HIM responsible and liable for all the "inaccurate data", fraud, copyright infringement, user comments and so forth... then maybe after a short while he'll have a better grasp of what the **** he's proposing.

- CN

WOT (1)

grege1 (1065244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085604)

Or just get everyone to install Web of Trust where the content is supplied by the user not some ISP or secret government agency. Kiddies, if it is red do not go there.

Trying to shove Internet Genie back in bottle. (1)

leftie (667677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085672)

And phone companies will agree to be responsible for the content of phone calls, too.

Good luck with that.

You can tell by the smell (3, Interesting)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085678)

Wow. 10 years or so into the 21st century, and the Earth is still covered in a uniform 100 foot layer of bullshit. It's never going to end, is it?

Where is the motivation? (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085704)

So what do all these politicians have to hide that they need the power to censor "speech" on the Internet. Or are they just preparing the way for when their kids get into power so they will have an easier time or perhaps bury the history of their actions because as u know, history will not be kind to these old crufts.

Re:Where is the motivation? (2, Insightful)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086162)

The current UK government is doing some very unpopular things and it is going to get worse.

Back in the eighties it was possible to largely control what the media printed and laws were put in place to prevent people gathering together.

Now it is possible to set up forums, publish idea's find like minded people and report on current events, publish photographs and video's easily and the UK government can do damn all to stop it appearing and worse for them for the British public to read it, with no "spin" from them.

Obviously if the Government can choose to block sites they can disrupt organised opposition to their policies.

http://www.fbu.org.uk/newspress/pressrelease/2010/10_29a.php [fbu.org.uk] This is from the fire brigade union, just a short piece on how striking firemen helped private contractors when they couldn't use the equipment properly, and countering some of the smear campaign against them.

Would the government choose to block sites like this if they could?

One thing i'm curious about is the lack of communication by ex MP's what do they do when they have lost their seat? Do any of them continue to work for the communities they have previously been representing?

Abuse (1)

thethibs (882667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085734)

a sea of abuse by commercial firms trying to attack freedom of speech and expression.

Given what goes on in other spheres, it's more likely NGOs trying to attack freedom of speech and expression

Worst example (1)

Evil Pete (73279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085754)

any material deemed to be 'inaccurate' (good luck with that) or privacy infringing is removed.

I guess that means they'll have to block everything from News Limited then. No loss.

Re:Worst example (1)

grege1 (1065244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085852)

The Limited part of the name was because it is a limited liability company. However these days it seems to mean the the news itself is Limited to what they want to tell you, for whatever is their purpose of the moment. I do not understand how they stay in business.

Get your facts straight (3, Insightful)

sosaited (1925622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085768)

From TFA

.....at least to attempt to give consumers some opportunity to have a dialogue with internet companies, as they would be able to do if a newspaper had inadvertently published that information.

Another minister blabbing BS about stuff he doesn't know. You Lord of morons, ISPs don't publish anything on Internet, they just provide access to what is already out there. What you are suggesting is comparable, to a micro level, to asking the postman give you each and every newspaper printed in the world that day, while first opening and reading all of them to see if they don't have anything printed in them that you deem wrong.

Re:Get your facts straight (2, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086694)

Internet Companies != ISPs

Internet Companies, in this context, are companies that operate in part or in whole on the internet.

Outsourcing ISP filtering idea. (1)

Israfels (730298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085776)

ISPs can outsource this job to China. They already have decades of experience and this allows the ISPs to lay blame on the next customer service call.

False or Misleading Advertising. (2, Interesting)

eav (701231) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085890)

Could we use this to complain about advertising that is in any way inaccurate?

Re:False or Misleading Advertising. (2, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086700)

That's what the ASA [asa.org.uk] is for.

erotik hikayeler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34085924)

http://www.erotik-hikayeler.net

Government hates freedom. Its what they do. (3, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085932)

The people want freedom, and the government wants control of the people. Nothing new here. Its the same old struggle.

They fear what you may reveal about them and others.

So much for "change" from the UK (4, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085944)

Didn't these guys get elected on the promise of LESS censorship and LESS civil liberties violations?
The only thing they have done so far on that score is to cancel the planned national ID card (and they only did that because it was costing so much money, not because they cared about civil liberties)

Is there ANYONE we can vote for in western countries like Australia, New Zealand, EU countries, US etc that will actually do something about giving people back the civil liberties they lost in the 10 years or so since some idiots crashed a couple of planes into some skyscrapers?
Is there ANYONE we can vote for that will do something GOOD when it comes to IP law and not just listen to the big end of town

Re:So much for "change" from the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086106)

...giving people back the civil liberties...

Civil liberties are not given. They are taken.

Look at what's happening in France and you'll see how it's done.

inaccurate??? (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085968)

So the first websites British ISP's will be asked to censor are:

www.direct.gov.uk

www.parliament.uk

www.fco.gov.uk

www.number10.gov.uk

Did I miss any important British websites responsible for spreading bullshit?

Re:inaccurate??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086866)

Don't forget Department of Work and Pensions!

www.dwp.co.uk

What a bunch of bullshiters they truly are.
They, somehow, managed to be 2 opposing things at the same time: cheap AND wasteful.
Not only did they give out too much money per person, they were too cheap to do interviews with people face-to-face because "it is too costly".
Now that has resulted in most people on benefits falling under either 1) too lazy to work, or 2), drug addicts.
The number of people genuinely ill, incapable or out of work are now the minority simply because there are very little verification checks.

Now we have actual ill people being forced off benefits because of them. I'm not even talking about someone who lost their legs, they can still do work. I mean people who have crippling diseases, stress related diseases, depression (full-on medical depression, not "oh my life sucks"), autoimmune, countless others.
These people can just barely live at times, then at other times, look perfectly fine.
But because of the crappy "standards" at DWP, these people end up falling under "capable of work" simply because debilitating diseases are treated the same as someone having their leg ripped off. They absolutely are not the same.

I'm sure most people in the UK on here probably knows someone somewhere who is having to suffer because of DWPs ignorance and laziness, most probably being grandparents.

please enter this into config file: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086236)

please enter this into config file:

us3r=1d10t

Well, the borders are drawn: (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086410)

Britain is already the country to go to for libel suits; they want to cement this position by getting a monopoly on on-demand censorship. China may have a more powerful censorship system, but it's centrally run and not available to international customers.

Given the nature of the internet, this will not be an issue as long as it is counterbalanced by another country establishing itself as a forerunner on online freedom.

It's not a law or even a proposal (4, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086460)

It's a debate. They're discussing the nature of internet privacy. Here's why this is a good idea; here's why it's a bad idea.

By talking openly and by being willing to say something stupid, they can avoid putting the stupid stuff in the actual legislation.

Storm in Teacup? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086608)

Actually, he is talking about a mediation service - censorship is neither directly quoted or implied.

A Mediation service simply means that if you find someone publishing content on the web you do not want them to, you can write to the ISP, who will forward the complaint to the site owner. in that respect it is quite useful that the privacy of the site owner is actually maintained.

Most responsible site owners already have a contact address to receive any complaints - and if the site does it is likely the ISP's 'mediation service' will simply tell the plaintiff to email the site master first.

In terms of ISPs censoring information - they already do that. Every ISP product comes with terms and conditions and it is possible right now to complain to an ISP about content online, and they may well remove it if it breaks those terms and conditions (a big one is not using your connection to incite racial hatred) without needing to provide a re-mediation service.

ISPs are not in the business of cutting people off their networks. Every user they cut off loses the business of that user and all potential business from that user refusing to recommend them. Since the 20% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are the same 20% of the users who give advice to 80% of the population when choosing an ISP: the ISPs are more than happy to allow their extra traffic.

The real Comunism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34086732)

I live in a post communist country. Well, I have seen communists, their methods..My grand father told me once: Remember, the real comunists will come from west.
And with time passing I see what he meant.

Censorship freedom (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087142)

Freedom to censor.

That's a new one.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>