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 Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children? dept.

United Kingdom 250

An anonymous reader writes "The UK minister for immigration and security, James Brokenshire has called for the government to do more to deal with 'unsavoury', rather than illegal, material online. 'Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas,' Brokenshire told Wired.co.uk in a statement."

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

Fascists (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500923)

Enough said.

Re:Fascists (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500949)

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

Re:Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501001)

Isn't this when the queen steps in and takes over?

Re:Fascists (4, Funny)

RDW (41497) | about 7 months ago | (#46501093)

Her corgis could probably do a better job than the last few governments.

Re:Fascists (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46501313)

...only until they noticed the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office trying to make itself scarce. ;-)

Re:Fascists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501299)

You assume we want/support our monarchy. It's a leech on society, nothing more.

Re:Fascists (2)

amorsen (7485) | about 7 months ago | (#46501401)

I have no idea what Her Majesty's policies would be, but while her reign has managed to outlive that of Fidel Castro, it must eventually end. Next in line is Prince Charles, and that would be an absolute disaster.

Re:Fascists (1)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#46501477)

I don't follow the royals, but wasn't there a prince who spent a long time in the military, and simply chose not to take the figurehead post at the top but rather worked his way up as a junior officer? Sounds like his head at least is in the right place. Someone who both values working for a living and has shown real loyalty to the UK would seem ideal here. And I'd think the royals have enough money to be a strong influence on politics regardless of their official powers.

Re:Fascists (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 7 months ago | (#46501479)

Why? It's not like he has any power.

Re:Fascists (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 7 months ago | (#46501523)

The GP proposal was for the Queen to take over, implying that he would get power eventually.

Some sort of weird catch 22 (2)

tomxor (2379126) | about 7 months ago | (#46501615)

But the asshat who understands the internet enough not to attempt to sensor it will get my vote. Let the race of the asshats commence.

Re:Fascists (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 7 months ago | (#46501707)

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

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

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

Re:Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500991)

Indeed. The .uk used to be cool. What happened?

Re:Fascists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501419)

Superiority complex. Don't worry, you'll get it too.

Re:Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501225)

Enough said.

Oh so he thinks he is going to stop me calling a coon a coon or a paki a paki he is in for one mother of a shock Oh yea is he just ..

Re:Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501305)

Enough said.

Oh so he thinks he is going to stop me calling a coon a coon or a paki a paki he is in for one mother of a shock Oh yea is he just ..

Ok, just go up to someone in Brixton and call them a coon then,
try the same thing with Paki in Newham..if you survive that couple of exercises, then plonk the same epithets on a uk based website where your ID is readily discernable/discoverable.

Do let us know how you get on...

Re:Fascists (2)

chilvence (1210312) | about 7 months ago | (#46501449)

Spineless cunt, if you're going to be a cunt, be a cunt with your own name.At least be a principled cunt. Cunt.

Re:Fascists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501577)

No, JEWS. You idiot.

Why do you think 'Fascism' is bad? Because the JEW told you, that's why. You haven't got a clue what's going on in the real world. Try doing some research - on the internet - before the Jew-owned government deletes all proof of their crimes against us.

http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Britain.php

Re:Fascists (4, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46501633)

I think it's a bad thing to repress free speech. Without hearing your ignorant invective firsthand we couldn't appreciate how fucked up you truly are.

Re:Fascists (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 7 months ago | (#46501713)

> Why do you think 'Fascism' is bad?

The book burning is an obvious bad sign.

Too bad. (2)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 7 months ago | (#46500937)

We all want things we can't have.

Re:Too bad. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501017)

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

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

Re:Too bad. (3, Informative)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 7 months ago | (#46501431)

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

I believe that would be V for Vendetta.

Re:Too bad. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46501639)

V for Vulgar?

Re:Too bad. (4, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 7 months ago | (#46501489)

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

Re:Too bad. (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46501517)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Too bad. (2)

Jack9 (11421) | about 7 months ago | (#46501691)

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

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

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

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

Re:Too bad. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501531)

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

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

Another ball of fire in the brains department. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500951)

Sure. Like they can remove child porn and pirated software from the internet. Now they want to scrub it of everything "unsavory"?

Do these politicians just sit around inventing stupid things to do to keep themselves busy and thus employed?

Something about 7 proxxies.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501057)

Joke's on them.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dwarf_fortress.png

Rember that porn filter (5, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 7 months ago | (#46500953)

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

Re:Rember that porn filter (4, Insightful)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 7 months ago | (#46501073)

It's almost like the government is trying to motivate people into using encryption and dark nets. Oh well, if they really want everyone using a VPN to talk with an offshore darknet then I guess we'll just have to oblige.

Re:Rember that porn filter (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 months ago | (#46501217)

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

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

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

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

Re:Rember that porn filter (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#46501281)

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

Re:Rember that porn filter (2)

amorsen (7485) | about 7 months ago | (#46501483)

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

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

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

Re:Rember that porn filter (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501123)

Looks like freedom provided by the government is on the way out. Time to get our own freedom: time for darknets. They can block what ever plain text crap they want, but when then come for the crypto and P2P routing, thats where we have to make a stand. That is the last hope, and we better not lose that. I'd like to stop this craziness before then, but we absolutely can't let them force all crypto or acceptance of incoming connections to be on a whitelist. As the darknets continue to defeat their filtering with increasing ease, they will come for them, and we must not let them fall: that would be the end of free communication. We are heading that way and I fear this far more than any "terrorists".

I would be perfectly willing to allow terrorists to try and recruit online if that is the price I have to pay to keep my freedom. Being able to browse their recruiting information should even be useful and educational. You can learn things like what issues they take with us and our society, and what misunderstandings they are leveraging. Its hard to convince people not to support something if you hide information about it from the public. Maybe some of their claims are legitimate grievances, or maybe its all crazy bullshit. It would be good to know. It seems like such material is worth studying a bit, not hiding. If I want to support some movement, and some subset of movements that oppose the government are censored, its hard to have an open debate about the issues. It seems undemocratic to rely on keeping the citizens ignorant of claims against the government. If such claims are unfounded, then open debate should show them as such, and make the groups behind them look like idiots: that will deter people from joining them much more then turning them into a secret club.

Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501159)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501331)

Hey as the merkins say on here about the NSA I don't care if The agents of the British Secret State spy on Americans that is their job and I want value for the tax I pay for their wages

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter... (1)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#46501515)

Can you browse those million pictures of naked Americans? No? Then you surely didn't get value for money!

Re:Oh yeah, wasn't that the filter... (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 7 months ago | (#46501501)

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

Unsavoury? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500957)

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

Re:Unsavoury? (1)

BeerCat (685972) | about 7 months ago | (#46501609)

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

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

True (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500981)

I want that "unsavory" UK Goverment to be removed 'cause they are shitting right now in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (free of expression).

Freedom Rings In Crimea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500985)

The Free Peoples of Crimea have voted for freedom and rejected the proclamations of Terror and Slavery forested upon them by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry.

Let Freedom Ring.

Self-propelling Censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46500993)

Clearly critical discussion of the potential abuse of such power is also unsavory, and must therefore be censored to prevent unsavoriness.

Re:Self-propelling Censorship (1)

PPH (736903) | about 7 months ago | (#46501587)

We apologize again for the fault in the headlines. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (5, Interesting)

Badger Nadgers (2423622) | about 7 months ago | (#46501003)

Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. 1) Politics 2) Religion 3) Bankers 4) Advertising

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (4, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 7 months ago | (#46501033)

And 5) The Daily Mail.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (2)

Badger Nadgers (2423622) | about 7 months ago | (#46501109)

6) "Celebrities"

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 7 months ago | (#46501143)

7) British cuisine?

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501173)

8) Real news on the BBC

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (0)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46501175)

no such thing that's why there's all those currie houses.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 7 months ago | (#46501289)

Not entirely true. We did invent the pudding, though the name is french.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 7 months ago | (#46501487)

yeah and you made it out of blood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Americans started making pudding out of chocolate like we were civilized.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 7 months ago | (#46501511)

I've often thought a surgical strike on tabloid newspaper offices would make Britain a happier and more tolerant place.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501549)

And 5) The Daily Mail.

Brilliant. So you're exactly like them.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (1)

fred911 (83970) | about 7 months ago | (#46501365)

The legal profession would like to thank the professions in positions 3-5 for being more unsavory.

Re:Sure, let's lose the unsavoury stuff. (-1, Redundant)

hey! (33014) | about 7 months ago | (#46501561)

5) British cuisine.

One man's terrorist (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 7 months ago | (#46501007)

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

Fuck the UK and their censorship.

Re:One man's terrorist (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 7 months ago | (#46501051)

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

Re:One man's terrorist (0)

amorsen (7485) | about 7 months ago | (#46501495)

There is massive support for this kind of policy among the UK population. Perhaps not among young people in London, but practically everyone else welcomes government Internet censorship.

Re:One man's terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501565)

Most are yet another tyrant fighter.

Safe From Radicals (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 7 months ago | (#46501015)

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

Re:Safe From Radicals (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 7 months ago | (#46501521)

Why don't we ask the Chileans, the Iraqis, the Indonesians and the Iranians about that.

"Unsavory" like dissenting opinions? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501021)

And still the UK continues it's not so graceful slide towards fascism.
Screw it i'm voting UKIP next time (like it'll make a difference *sigh*)

Re:"Unsavory" like dissenting opinions? (0)

Badger Nadgers (2423622) | about 7 months ago | (#46501089)

Alan Sked, who launched Ukip in 1991, hs said "quite clearly UKIP nowadays is led by morons who have no policies and are fascistic and the chickens are coming home to roost" and launched a highly personal attack on UKIP's leader Nigel Farage, accusing him of recruiting former members of the National Front to the party.

Re:"Unsavory" like dissenting opinions? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501525)

Yeah that's it, UKIP are certainly the fascist fuckwits we can all trust.

That's right, isn't it Mr. Farage? Nice Mr. Farage.

Re:"Unsavory" like dissenting opinions? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501711)

>Screw it i'm voting UKIP next time

Yeah, vote for a party that wants to re-introduce the treason act, and hang people for advocating abolishing the monarchy.

See how well that works out.

We Said "no" 230 years ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501031)

Our answer hasn't changed, you puritanical Freedom hating motherloving tea and crumpet eating bad tooth having douchbags. Seriously, go fuck yourselves. Go and innovate your own motherfucking internet, then you can ensure that your population doesn't have the opportunity to think.

Re:We Said "no" 230 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501457)

puritanical

Hold on - didn't the Mayflower sail west?

In more recent times... "the FCC increased the fine per indecency violation from $27,500 to $325,000 shortly after the event."

Re:We Said "no" 230 years ago (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46501673)

Oh yes it did. They've evolved into New Englanders now and I'm sure their ancestors would be shocked at how that's turned out.

Why do not they "remove" themselves from our lives (3, Funny)

mike555 (2843511) | about 7 months ago | (#46501067)

I consider governments unsavory and want them to be removed from our lives.

Set a better example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501085)

Wait!? Didn't they just say something about the Russians blocking websites of people who had views that were different than the government? Don't just cut the negative views, boost the positive! It's not the propaganda that cause people to riot it is the lack of discourse. Keep the news smart, educated and above the average intelligence of the viewer and maybe the viewer will learn something.

Reason for laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501107)

Can someone please explain to me how this doesn't totally undermine the idea behind having laws in the first place?

headline != article (5, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 7 months ago | (#46501111)

UK Government Wants "Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed

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

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

Re:headline != article (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 7 months ago | (#46501337)

Yet one shrill think-of-the-children bint was enough for the threat of filter legislation if the ISPs didn't do it "voluntarily"...

Re:headline != article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501357)

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

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

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

Re:headline != article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501361)

migration and security, James Brokenshire has called for the government to do more...

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

This is a case of the government using a wonk to 'test the waters', wonk makes statement, PR bods see how sheeple react, too many uncomfortable baas from the sheeple, higher up wonk gets trotted out to say it isn't the government's current intention to do so, but feel a wider debate on the subject is merited...or some other such kind of weasel words...no baas, then it's a done deal.

Freedom of Speech/Expression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501131)

Freedom of Speech/Expression means the freedom to do wrong too, This is wrong.

Re:Freedom of Speech/Expression (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#46501287)

Which is limited in the UK. ( this isn't the US we are discussing here, this time )

Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves (1, Interesting)

Nichotin (794369) | about 7 months ago | (#46501135)

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

Re:Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501375)

Yep. Let's invade some foreign countries and occupy them. Then when we get the extremist fallout following our actions..

Aye, just wait to all those 'freedom fighters' in Syria who're uk passport holders come back...we're in for a extremely fun time.

Re:Yeah, let's solve problems we made ourselves (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46501683)

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

since the USA is not "that guy" anymore (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 7 months ago | (#46501137)

welcome to All Those Guys

I know a better way to radicalise people (2)

BlatantRipoff (933953) | about 7 months ago | (#46501151)

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

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

Slippery slope (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#46501267)

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

"Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed? (-1, Offtopic)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 7 months ago | (#46501297)

They can start by banning all UK based cooking web sites. Few things are as unsavory as English cuisine.

Re:"Unsavory" Web Content To Be Removed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501671)

Hey! there's nothing wrong with Spotted Dick!

mother!!!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501311)

is she gonna bust my balls?

Welcome to Australia, circa 2009 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501447)

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

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

Brokenshire. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501455)

His name is Brokenshire? That's oddly apt.

sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501497)

and i want 3 tittied porn, so that makes loggerheads now dont it?

Someone should just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501529)

shoot James Brokenshire in the head and put his head on a stake in the town square as a warning to other Fascists.

American giving up the internet (2, Insightful)

vix86 (592763) | about 7 months ago | (#46501541)

And this is the kind of stuff that many of us fear when the US gives up ICANN/the internet. First its porn, then what next?

Re:American giving up the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501635)

You make a good point. The big upside of the US having more control over the internet is that fascist regimes such as the UK have less (I'm a Brit; using AAISP; keen to emigrate).

The US is far from perfect (less than a shadow of a country I used to call America), but is still much better than average when it comes to liberty.

Der Führer would be laughing. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501579)

Every time I see criticism of the US by someone in the UK I just
laugh. The US is a paradise compared to the UK, which is a living hell
and a police state.

What a sad little has-been of a country.

And it's getting worse every year.

Self censoring already the standard (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501599)

According to Pat Condell on YouTube [youtube.com] , self censoring is already the standard in the UK.

The world becomes less free everyday (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501619)

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

Sorry, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46501697)

>we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted ... overseas

So, something that could be legal in say... Iran?

And yet the British think that they have the right to control what is on the Internet?

They couldn't be any more fascist if they tried. And yet they have the audacity to criticize China?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?