Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

EU Proposal Would Encourage Web Users To Flag Suspicious Web Pages

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the dude-karma-is-so-prior-art dept.

EU 95

littlekorea writes "Web surfers in Europe might soon be asked to 'flag' for law enforcement follow-up any web content they suspect incites terrorism, under an plan a group of EU governments has put to the internet industry. The plan asks for ISPs, search engines, web hosts and everyday users to play a larger role in identifying suspect content. Google already has a similar feature on YouTube — will we see it in the browser?"

cancel ×

95 comments

Bet I can guess some of the top ten (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571594)

Who wants to bet that the top of the list of "flagged" sites will be comprised of EU government and law enforcement sites? I guess we'll only know for sure if they refuse to release a list of the top sites flagged. In fact, I dare say that the list will be so cluttered with joke flaggings that it will be difficult to determine what, if any, sites identified are actually "inciting terrorism" (not helped by the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's political leader).

But then again, I suspect the goal of this really isn't to actually identify terrorist sites. I suspect that this is just more of the same sort of security circus show that has the TSA making me take off my shoes at the airport, even as they load a hundred suitcases of largely unscrutinized baggage on the same plane. It could also be another step in getting Europeans used to the idea of law enforcement dictating terms to ISP's and of "flagged" websites being blocked--almost all of which will of course end up being torrent sites, proxies, Wikileaks and other leak sites, etc. that have nothing to do with terrorists.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571656)

Can I flag the MoD? What about the Queen?

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (3, Funny)

duguk (589689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571706)

Can I flag the MoD? What about the Queen?

I'll be flagging GoDaddy, Sony, Microsoft and Goldman Sachs right away.

Who comes up with these ideas and do they have any foresight at all?

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571876)

Foresight? I bet they don't have foreskin...

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572078)

Don't forget all Christian and Muslim websites. Have you read their holy books? Very violent.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38573282)

Nothing compared to the Jewish god [youtube.com] . (Sorry for the shoddy version. The better one seem to be gone.)

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574846)

Can I flag the MoD? What about the Queen?

I'll be flagging GoDaddy, Sony, Microsoft and Goldman Sachs right away. Who comes up with these ideas and do they have any foresight at all?

Let's see... Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, McCarthy-era USA, to name a few. And I'd say that foresight isn't the problem. It appears that a lack of hindsight is the real issue.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (2)

The Creator (4611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38579102)

It appears that a lack of hindsight is the real issue.

If you are suggesting we rip out their eyeballs from their sockets and shove them up their asses, i could totally support that.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572562)

Remember when the UK censorship agency used Cleanfeed to block the "child pornography" on Wikipedia, which had in fact been on sale in music shops all over the UK? That was thanks to a concerned citizen giving them a tip-off, and I can only imagine it was as a joke or to provoke a stupid reaction.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38574350)

"UK censorship agency"? What's that, then?
(Hint: there's no such thing.)

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (2)

richardablitt (897338) | more than 2 years ago | (#38577186)

Probably referring to the IWF [iwf.org.uk] .

Almost all of the UK ISPs use their block list, although when I last checked the UK Free Software Network don't.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38578344)

None of the three ISPs I use appear to use a block list of any kind; care to substantiate your assertion that "almost all" do?

It's Not Like They Force You To Report (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571688)

I suspect that this is just more of the same sort of security circus show that has the TSA

Well, in awkward defense of this plan (I don't think it will work either) I must point out that this is probably several orders of magnitude cheaper than what those TSA actions cost you as a tax payer. I mean, we have right now on the local level a report-to-the-police then police-investigate system complete with repercussions if that system is abused. And that sometimes works well so why wouldn't a similar plan work for the web on a larger level and be way cheaper than TSA groping and cancer dosing at airports?

TSA making me take off my shoes at the airport

The difference between these two things is that the article makes it sounds like you can opt in to report pages for terrorism. Nobody would be making anyone do anything in this EU scenario. I don't see any threats of failure to report citations or whatever you would do to enforce this.

even as they load a hundred suitcases of largely unscrutinized baggage on the same plane.

That's not true, the screen every bag. I had a lot of olive oils and mustards (two of my favorite condiments) as Christmas presents that I flew back with from MSP to IAD and when I arrived and got my luggage there was a little note in my bag saying the contents had made them hand search it after it was screened.

It could also be another step in getting Europeans used to the idea of law enforcement dictating terms to ISP's and of "flagged" websites being blocked--almost all of which will of course end up being torrent sites, proxies, Wikileaks and other leak sites, etc. that have nothing to do with terrorists.

They pretty much said that in the article (except that would be a separate system left to nation by nation laws):

This could be combined with a ‘notice and take down’ system under which law enforcement agencies would assess flagged web pages and forward take down notices to ISPs if the content is believed to contravene national laws.

I don't think they're like the United States in that respect but I guess only time will tell. I think it'd be smart of the EU to stay out of petty things like copyright infringement as the cost and infrastructure would be far too high and there are bigger problems like terrorism, sex trafficking, etc to target.

Re:It's Not Like They Force You To Report (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571740)

That's not true, the screen every bag. I had a lot of olive oils and mustards (two of my favorite condiments) as Christmas presents that I flew back with from MSP to IAD and when I arrived and got my luggage there was a little note in my bag saying the contents had made them hand search it after it was screened.

Well I feel safer now. We can't have those contraband olive oils and mustards on the plane. Meanwhile, while they are looking for everything under the sun, the stuff they want to keep out sails right through.

The TSA running down a rabbit hole chasing your condiments does not make anyone safer.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571698)

Hey look, it's the return of the Block Ward and Citizens-spying-on-citizens programs! Just as stupid, and just as dangerous. Not to mention that I WANT my terrorist sites out in the open. That way, we can watch them, identify the arguments, communication methods and even plans of the more retarded terrorists much more easily! To anyone who is arguing that this program doesn't mean that the sites have to be taken down, yes it will: can you imagine how you run against somebody who says "I shut down 20000 terrorist websites in the last year alone"? The only thing to do is to shout that you shut down 200000, and that your opponent sleeps with terrorists.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (2)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573970)

Be a Government Informer. Betray Your Family & Friends. Fabulous Prizes to be Won.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574902)

Because that's totally the kind of behavior you want to promote among the peace-loving populace -> distrust for your neighbor.

You know, I enjoyed reading dystopian novels when I was younger, I did not expect to live in one!

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38571704)

Of course there will be a lot of joke flaggings, but going through all of those is still easier than going through the entire Internet.
This system is not supposed to replace manual search for terrorist sites by law enforcement agents, but to help them do it more efficiently.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572244)

Who wants to bet that the top of the list of "flagged" sites will be comprised of EU government and law enforcement sites?

Don't worry. People who inappropriately flag things will have their flags dropped from the system, ensuring that only right minded individuals have their voices heard.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38575006)

Inappropriately? It could be argued that flagging various government and law enforcement sites as terrorist in nature would not only be appropriate, but would be definitionally correct.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572256)

I agree, I'd also go so far as to say that if you wanted to boycott this system, abusing it would be the best way to show it for the farce it is.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572974)

What about a new penalty for (wait for it...) "False Flagging"?

That would then completely muddy the search engines to cover people running "False Flag" operations, preventing you from finding the reports of Whistleblowers.

Also, couldn't someone write a script/app that flags sites?

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38573424)

there's a penalty on false DMCA flagging but no one cares same will happen to this

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574230)

It indeed sounds like a way an excuse for censorship : ' We didn't block the site, a majority of the people wanted it blocked' .
On the other side, they make no claim that the removal will happen democratically : it's to identify content. They do whathever they want with it.

The following will probably happen :

- Some actual terrorism sites will be identified, and shut down
- A number of harmless sites ( but which the regime disapproves of ) will be removed, and the excuse will be that the people wanted it blocked
- A number of bad sites ( but which the regime doesn't want removed ) will be flagged a lot , but will not be removed, and the excuse will be that no problem was found with it.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

Ohrion (814105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574420)

This seems most likely to me too.

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

FirephoxRising (2033058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38581452)

+1 insightful, I'm out of mod points. I'm afraid that you're correct, the multinats being able to buy and control the media is scary too. It used to be that a brave reporter and paper could blow something wide open, now it gets quietly burried unless it can get out through wikileaks and the like. April O'Neil where are you now?

Re:Bet I can guess some of the top ten (1)

WildBlueYonder (1714974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586454)

Who wants to bet that the top of the list of "flagged" sites will be comprised of EU government and law enforcement sites? I guess we'll only know for sure if they refuse to release a list of the top sites flagged. In fact, I dare say that the list will be so cluttered with joke flaggings that it will be difficult to determine what, if any, sites identified are actually "inciting terrorism" (not helped by the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's political leader).

You are incorrect in thinking that those are false positives. Every single flag is guaranteed to find a terrorist, the site being flagged, or the person doing the flagging. Obviously if you are going to sabotage their intelligence gathering with protests against Big Brother you must be one of Them.

One can not help but wonder.. (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571642)

...at what the deeper roots of the current and ongoing security craze are ?

Re:One can not help but wonder.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38571694)

Ignorance and apathy. The root of forms all complacency.

Re:One can not help but wonder.. (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571762)

Shhhh... Everything is just as it seems.

Re:One can not help but wonder.. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572274)

Greed and ambition.

Re:One can not help but wonder.. (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572296)

The fat, greedy and parasitical financial industry have been sucking all the money from the European governments and then claiming the states have incurred into too much debt.
The corrupt governments take advantage to take away from their own citizens everything they have worked hard for: Liberty, security, health care, education, etc.
The governments then tell them it serves them right for living irresponsibly all these years. The citizens then apologise and bow down just a little bit more.

Apparently, the con is not working any more. So they need to find some baddies to blame and divert attentions. Who's your favourite baddie? Of course, OMG teh Terrahist! Thay comes ta get us! We're all gonna diiiiiie!

I don't think it will work, though. This baddie is a little worn out. Why don't you try to blame the immigrants? That one never gets old!

Diamond Dog! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571646)

Please saviour, saviour, show us
Hear me, I'm graphically yours

Someone to claim us, someone to follow

Someone to shame us, some brave Apollo

Someone to fool us, someone like you
We want you Big Brother,
Big Brother

If they publish the list of flagged sites, we might actually find something worth reading. At this rate, the "approved" content on the 'net will be MN's coverage of Kardashian plastic surgery, and the Daily Mail fawning over gong distribution.

Everyone flag slashdot! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38571652)

Let's face it - most of the stories on here are pretty suspect.

Report terrorism - (2)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571682)

- soon to be followed requests to report by child abuse, drug trade, piracy, and general critique of the EU and government.
We are slowly learning from the US laws.

Re:Report terrorism - (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571686)

"We're doing this to fight terrorism" has become the 21st century equivalent of "We're doing this to protect the children."

Re:Report terrorism - (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574530)

Well, why keep pushing the children stuff, if you can instigate fear in more people... parent or not.

Re:Report terrorism - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38581998)

Then our children have to mop up the mess we have caused for them. It's the reverse childhood all over again, also know as the revenge of the parents.

Re:Report terrorism - (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571784)

We are slowly learning from the US laws.

Don't be so hard on yourself. With tens of thousands of security cameras across your cities, rampant hoplophobia, and courts that favor criminals over anyone even thinking of defending themselves, you are leading the charge into a moronic nanny state.

Re:Report terrorism - (3, Informative)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571956)

>Don't be so hard on yourself. With tens of thousands of security cameras across your cities,
That is mostly the brits. But I grant you the point.

> rampant hoplophobia,
With a murder rate less than a 6th of that rate in gun loving USA, I consider this wise.

>courts that favor criminals over anyone even thinking of defending themselves,
You lost me here. Self defense is legal. Courts are tough on crime (at least where I live). Corruption is almost nill, Last I heard it was in the us a burglar could sue the owner of the house he broke in to if he broke his leg during the heist. And win.

Re:Report terrorism - (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572524)

>Don't be so hard on yourself. With tens of thousands of security cameras across your cities, That is mostly the brits. But I grant you the point.

> rampant hoplophobia, With a murder rate less than a 6th of that rate in gun loving USA, I consider this wise.

Non sequitur. What are your population numbers, in relation to that of the US?
Statistically, there is no causality between gun ownership and murder rates in the US; quite the opposite in many places [nytimes.com] .

Europe, too [nytimes.com] .

... Last I heard it was in the [US] a burglar could sue the owner of the house he broke in to if he broke his leg during the heist. And win.

Only in the People's Republic of California [urbandictionary.com] .

hoplophobia (3, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572600)

hoplophobia

I had to look up this word. It means "fear of weapons" (I thought a Hoplon was a shield, not a general weapon). Somehow some some Americans think weapons are perfectly safe and normal, even in an environment where you don't need them for the dangerous wildlife. How sick must you be to come up with such a word?

Re:hoplophobia (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572730)

Swiss think weapons are perfectly safe and normal as well, and Switzerland is a far more civilized nation than the UK could ever dream of being. Of course, british people are subject of the crown, while the Swiss are Citizens. Capitalization is not incidental.

Re:hoplophobia (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572942)

Oddly enough, Switzerland is also the closest thing to a Direct Democracy the world has. Does that mean you would like to see a Direct Democracy in the US?

Re:hoplophobia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38574440)

"british people are subject of the crown"

Funny, it says that I'm a "British Citizen" on my passport. People naturalized here are granted something called "British citizenship". Can you point me at something that tells me I am a "subject"?

Re:hoplophobia (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38598458)

The Queen (or any monarch you may happen to have) can still legally order you around. Check your laws. Or maybe it's too much work for you, everybody knows that limeys don't like to work, and then whine about unemployment.

Re:hoplophobia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38574970)

As of the British Nationality Act 1981 being a 'subject' of the queen is no more, unless you're a foreign national living here without British citizenship.

Re:hoplophobia (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572788)

Somehow some some Americans think weapons are perfectly safe and normal, even in an environment where you don't need them for the dangerous wildlife. How sick must you be to come up with such a word?

Hoplophobe, defined.

Re:hoplophobia (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573452)

We don't need weapons for the dangerous wildlife. We need them for the dangerous people. The fact we can use them on the wildlife is just a bonus.

Re:Report terrorism - (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573894)

With a murder rate less than a 6th of that rate in gun loving USA, I consider this wise.

1) There are several countries with a high number of gun owners (some higher than the USA), yet with a low murder rate
2) A number of countries are very strict on ownership of firearms, yet have a relatively high number of gun-related violent incidents
3) Non gun-related violence in the USA is higher than average as well


I think there should be some form of control of firearms, but in view of these 3 points I don't find the reasons and examples that are usually cited to be all that compelling. There might be less of a relation between gun ownership and crime rates than both proponents and opponents of the 2nd amendment would like to think there is.

Re:Report terrorism - (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574984)

Cars are far more dangerous than gun, in practice. It's reasonable to expect someone to demonstrate basic competence before having either in a public place. On one's own property, however, the government has little business with either.

Re:Report terrorism - (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38573006)

And then there's the USA.

1. anal retentive TSA.

2. random detainment in gitmo.

3. no longer being able to fly because you're on some sort of list.

4. government secretly wiretapping all phonecalls.

Its clearly the USA that's leading the way into the 'moronic nanny state'.

Re:Report terrorism - (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38579110)

UK, Spain, parts of France/Germany, east of Austria - for generations the idea of informing was a positive.
Just moving with the times from "packages" and "strangers" to webpages.
Its a great EU boondoggle - the reporting site/plug in, every page has to be looked at, passive log requests of low risk sites, ongoing surveillance of more interesting people.
Admis/sites been investigated... dossier updated with voice prints, new faces, sharing of intel with the US
All that expensive software to rent/expertise on over time/hardware sales, telco and isp staff setting up logging... never ending site logs to sort.
Then roll out the informants, long term persona management jobs... infiltration.. , raids... courts, private prison contractors, extradition requests...

I Hope The US Government Starts This (2)

NoSalt (801989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571696)

Then I'll start flagging whitehouse.gov, fbi.gov, tsa.gov, mpaa.org, riaa.org, etc.

Re:I Hope The US Government Starts This (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38571792)

Don't do it.
Those who flag these sites will immediately be put on an DHS watchList and noFlyList.
If you do it again, you will be arrrested and held indefinetely without trial under the laws that Pres Obama singned off on just before Christmas.

You have been warned.
BB is watching you

Yours,
      Pres Obama

That's a Really Great Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38571722)

Honestly -- it's a great idea. This will be a "teachable moment" for the techno-illiterates in government. They should also be required to write up a report on what they will do to address the concerns of the citizens when a web site reaches a certain high-water mark. Nothing like writing up a report on how the government will address citizen concerns about how the UK MoD or the DE CDU are inciting terrorism.

We can start with.. (2)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571746)

Flagging the White House Web Site.

Well the salvation army are obviously (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571752)

Well the salvation army are obviously paramilitary

this will lead to terrorist mania (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571754)

Just like in 1914 we had a German spy mania. Also some busybody (a Jeremy Vine listener no doubt) will report the Asian family next door neighbor because they got a new wheelie bin from the council.

Re:this will lead to terrorist mania (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571794)

Just like in 1914 we had a German spy mania. Also some busybody (a Jeremy Vine listener no doubt) will report the Asian family next door neighbor because they got a new wheelie bin from the council.

We blew the last one up mixing explosives you insensitive clod

This will be the 21st century (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571768)

This will be the 21st century Cones Hotline [wikipedia.org]

Re:This will be the 21st century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572616)

That was well before its time. Mobiles weren't exactly common back then. By the time you got home, you'd be getting on with something else rather than trying to remember a number to call to point out where the cones were. Do it today, and you'd need most of India to man the calls!

Non Sense (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571770)

This makes no sense. I can understand a "request" by government officials to report "suspicious" behavior while driving down a highway (motorway?) or common street. I have to pass by things, places along the way. The internet is not like that. I don't consciously stop by web sites that may promote terrorism, I don't actively look for web sites that incite violence; just like I don't drive down dark alleys or bad sections of town on purpose. If I did want to go to sites like that, the last thing I'd do is report it. The web is my instant teleporter to where I want to go and the last place I want to visit is a web site that may state "blow up buildings for God". Were I even displayed a page like that (because of a typo) I would hope that the bloody billions we spend on monitoring bad guys would have already flagged said site.

The world economy is getting dismantled by greedy assholes, the environment is being systematically abused for energy consumption and what a government has to offer to its population for concern is "if you see a web site of stuff you don't like", report it.

I'd like to report these dim-bulb officials as terrorists against intelligence.

Soon they ask us for names of terrorists as well (1)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571800)

Which will work out splendidly, as first shown on SNL [guzer.com] .

firefox plugin anyone? (1)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571824)

Seems pretty trivial to write a firefox plugin to add a "report terrorist" option to the right click menu. It's pretty much guaranteed to be simpler and more effective than whatever their committee came up with in their "draft manifesto".

This could be up and running before anyone even gets around to reading their proposal.

call in the Stasi! (2)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571906)

There are many former Stasi informers who are probably more than happy to apply their organizational and informant skills to this new challenge.

signal to noise? (1)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571968)

Lets say they manage to get people to report stuff they see. How are they going to deal with the influx of all the reported sites? Presumably the people reading terrorist sites support those views, so there's not going to be a lot reports of them. Meanwhile slashdot, facebook, etc are going to have tons of people reporting them. You can't just filter out those sites because there is so much user content that could potentially be from a terrorist.

So how are you going to find the 1 report for bob.terrorshack.com among the 1500 reports of facebook comments that someone didn't like? There's just going to be so much noise that the analysis is going to be a massive waste of man hours. And it seems like the easier they make the reporting process, the more noise there will be. The whole thing sounds like a good idea ... until you start thinking about it.

Re:signal to noise? (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573230)

There are plenty of ways you can filter out the noise.

Just ignore reports on facebook, slashdot and commonly used websites. You can also have a reputation system where you Ignore users that abuse the system and report irrelevant content. Someone who has a history of reporting relevant content can be given priority.

Flag of convenience (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572004)

I propose that European Union pages that mention the accounts be flagged for investigation, as the accounts have not been signed off as accurate due to the level of fraud and corruption for 16 years in a row.. 16 years of fraud accounts [dailymail.co.uk]

Maybe someone will eventually be arrested, charged, and convicted over these frauds and corruption. I won't hold my breath.

When everyone is a spy (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572168)

And you don't know who is watching.. sounds a lot like nazi germany was .

There was a word for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572348)

Snitch.

Just sayin'

Here is one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572350)

"any web content they suspect incites terrorism"

From the eprspective of the US bullying their way : whitehouse.gov

This Already Exists (sort of) (5, Informative)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572386)

Web of Trust [mywot.com] already provides a very valuable service in flagging suspect and malicious websites. It's a mix of both automated systems and user input.

Very useful, very effective and very easy. The only thing it "lacks" is the ability to report something to the "authorities", but I don't consider that to be a fault.

Seriously? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572478)

First, you can expect us griefers to flag the government sites, police especially, of any nation we have a burr under our saddle about. Then the site of whatever corporation just sold us s defective product, tainted food, or just whatever we think *other people* should not be buying. McDonalds anyone?

Then move on to flag your competitors' sites, etc.

And while they're at it, why not flag your ex, their kids, etc. Jilted lovers will make good use of this feature.

Seriously? They think this stuff up? All in the name of what, copyright?

A pox on them all. Maybe the non-EU nations will resist this and ignore any such flagging.

And yes, I know this is about 'terrorism'. Abuse will abound. Pointless.

this can fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572522)

It is not like it is not possible to warn the authorities about serious bad stuff on the internet at the moment.

Make the process too easy and you will only be swamped with false positives (people not having a clue, trying to settle scores, etc).
This will probably drown the real information, which they then also will not receive via other means anymore.

Any web content that "promotes terrorism?" (1)

Hasai (131313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572582)

....Or any web content the particular pack of yahoos currently in power just happens to not agree with?

I got one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572620)

I'm flagging 4chan and /b/ ... the best and the worst of the web.

Seriously? (1)

zammer990 (2225956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572626)

What websites could you flag that would seriously be promoting terrorism that haven't already been shut down. I'm relatively certain that AlQaeda.com has already been shut down, along with DieYouInfidels.com and GoCompare.com. Or maybe the terrorists are learning, and have called their websites Americanpatriots.com and Welovecutelittlebunnies.com. I mean who's going to flag a website for terrorism if it's got cute bunnies on the cover page?

Flood it (1)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572958)

1) Build web crawler (man, nobody talks of them nowadays)
2) Crawler flags all visited sites
3) Publish crawler code so that others can also run it on their own sites

Result: the input channel gets flooded with a neverending stream of random false positives.

Flagging concentrated on a few main corporate sites won't do it since they can just remove them from the list, and then go after the first unknown remaining site. But distributed automatic notifications would make human flags dissapear inside the noise.

When suspicion equals guilt (4, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572992)

First it was the DMCA, then SOPA and PIPA. Now it looks like Europe is likewise adopting the model of taking down content based on claims of infringement/illegality rather than actual infringement or illegality. From TFA: "This could be combined with a ‘notice and take down’ system under which law enforcement agencies would assess flagged web pages and forward take down notices to ISPs if the content is believed to contravene national laws."

There's also a major flaw in this plan: Crowdsourcing is only as good as your crowd, which in this case is likely to consist mostly of idiots.

Re:When suspicion equals guilt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38582214)

There's also a major flaw in this plan: Crowdsourcing is only as good as your crowd, which in this case is likely to consist mostly of idiots.

When you source enough idiots you will get a pearl occasionally. This method is often used in marketing and traffic control.

Might Be Illegal or Unwanted (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572998)

From TFA:

"Law Enforcement Agencies of all countries should actively flag and encourage the use of flagging among end users as much as possible as a way of notification to the ISP that they are hosting content which might be illegal or unwanted."

Pressure the ISP to remove speech, and you don't have to bother with those annoying free speech questions.

Common carrier or catalyzing oligarchy -- binary options. We know which side the government is going to come down on, so it's going to be an uphill battle. Sooner we get started, the sooner it's over.

Why Not? (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573512)

If you encounter an obviously bogus web page, why not report it? Kill those NIGGERS!!! Niggers. Fuck karma, you have NO idea what that is, heathens!!!

This proposal terrifies me. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573632)

Where can I go and flag all articles about this sort of 1984-esque activity?

Chaff-Flagging Virus (1)

Teppy (105859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573672)

Assuming they have a provision in the law about "it is a crime to terrorist-flag a site that you do not suspect of terrorism" - then I could imagine viruses that do the chaff-flagging for you. In fact, purposely installing such a virus would allow you to help thwart such a law while giving plausible deniability.

We had that in Germany already (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573800)

We had that in Germany, in the east block. There were people that can go to the police or directly to the Stasi and get suspicion people arrested, their home searched, etc. That leads to nice paranoia, so you can't trust your neighbor or your family anymore. It's some kind of creepy that we go down that road again.

For more information please read Ministry of State Security of the GDR [wikipedia.org]

Between 1950 and 1989, the Stasi employed a total of 274,000 people [...] along with 173,081 unofficial informants inside GDR. In terms of the identity of inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs) Stasi informants, by 1995, 174,000 had been identified, which approximated 2.5% of East Germany's population between the ages of 18 and 60.

What is wrong with the current politicians? They are suppose to be have knowledge in history, and they are suppose to abide morally and democracy.

We really need more punishment and accountability for politicians. I'm all for a three-trike system for politicians. After the last strike you cannot do any political work anymore and you lost all your pensions.

Thoughts (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573890)

Exactly why is this a good thing? So, if someone vehemently disagrees with content on a website that can just flag it as suspicious for law enforcement review? The language is too vague. Someone could be simply expressing an opinion, which in turn could be misunderstood or purposely misconstrued as terroristic in nature. This is definitely not a good thing at all.

It's not that serious (2)

emakinen (875208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574140)

You can read the full draft proposal of CleanIT project here: http://www.cleanitproject.eu/CLEAN%20IT%20DRAFT%20DOCUMENT%2002.doc [cleanitproject.eu] Although the draft itself seems bad, this CleanIT is basically wishful thinking by some police organizations. It's far from becoming a law, or even a proposal for a law.

Get used to it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38574454)

This is one step closer to have the population investigate itself, a required step for world domination. We'll be seeing alot of crowdsourced intelligencegathering in the feature, just to make the populus used to the idea. The quality of the reported material is not as important as the aspect of the action.

Suspect in whose opinion? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38574712)

http://www.irs.gov/ [irs.gov] makes me want to blow something up every time I see it.

Whose fault? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38575920)

So from now on whenever a website gets disappeared, it will be because it was "the Will of the People that the blight be erased?"

Tyranny, take one steps forward.
Accountability, take two steps back.

Can't abuse this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38575966)

The good thing is that it would be impossible to abuse this.

Now extend that to report other types of content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38576062)

"Inciting terrorism"..

How about "inciting hatred against the state or a legitimate political party?" (inciting hatred against an 'illegitimate' political party is naturally so good that even the leading politicians of the legitimate ones will do it).

How about "inciting hatred against groups of people"?

How about "inciting nationalist sentiment"?

How about reporting sites that "portray the European Union with a negative and inaccurate bias", so that balancing "facts" can be legally required?

Sometimes I think there are too many politicians that really HAVE crazy, crazy Machavellian One-World-Order thoughts in their head.

Content would be removed if 'legal but unwanted'.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38576234)

“Law Enforcement Agencies of all countries should actively flag and encourage the use of flagging among end users as much as possible as a way of notification to the ISP that they are hosting content which might be illegal or unwanted.”

So Law Enforcement Agencies will have a list of content that is illegal, and a list of content that is legal but unwanted. They will encourage the population in general to report both. They obviously would not encourage that flagging of something if it is crystal clear that it never would be removed - hence logically we must conclude that the system somehow presupposes that ISPs would also remove "legal but unwanted" content.

'Soft power', or 'mailed fist in a velvet glove'.

The funny thing is, the biggest threat to Europe is now from a small number of politicians. Probably only a few hundred individuals.

It is not the EU that is proposing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38583124)

The title is misleading. It is not the EU that is proposing that, but the members of a project that is currently funded by the EU:

http://www.cleanitproject.eu/abouttheproject.html.

That is not the same.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...