"The Internet Watch Foundation is usually rolled out as an example of how a blacklist can work successfully. It told us that its success depends on its very tight remit of child sexual abuse images and that this was unlikely to change in the immediate future"
I don't really consider the IWF as an example of a successful blacklist. For a start, the list is a closely guarded secret, so we dont really know what on it. I know it sounds like i thinks its a big conspiracy, i don't. I just dont like the idea of having a black list that no-one i allowed to see.
How do we know they are a success when we don't know how many sites they miss or falsely categorise as bad for our moral health?
Theresa May is an extremist!!! Look into her past, I dare you...
...but you'd rather she didn't.
I am a doctor
And I believe Theresa May will become a violent extremist in the future.
How do I go about reporting this? I cant wait to get the police investigating all the people I believe are planning to disrupt our society and social values.
Its good that being a doctor now makes me just as good at terrorist spotting as spending years in MI5/MI6/Special Branch. Roll on the New World Order.
You mean by blocking an encyclopaedia article about an album (causing disruption to a number of said encyclopaedia's editors), and a number of filehosts (affecting downloads of legitimate files as well as dodgy ones)?
And how long until Anonymous have a bot running on this AOL search thing to generate over 9000 false positives?
To be fair, IWF didn't block an encyclopedia article, they blocked a wikipedia article. Key difference is that an encyclopedia would probably be accurate, and also probably wouldn't have an article on Blind Faith.
Great idea about the doctors
The doctors don't want to do it? No problem. Whenever someone is charged with a terrorist event, we charge his doctor with conspiracy.
7 people so far
with no sense of humour or ability to detect sarcasm.
A few days ago I mused over why people find it necessary to use this icon.
I'm beginning to understand.
Hairdressers would be a better choice
'So, bombing anywhere nice this year?'
While El Reg is an IT news site geared for technical readers, the IQ of its readership does vary.
like Something for the weekend?
Yep, the one with the hair-clippers and detonators in the pocket.
... I apologise - I initially down-voted you, and listened to my sarcasm meter and changed it. The problem with your comment is that we do get posters here that would say that and (claim to) mean it. People who seem to believe that they are "realists", and that people who want a better world in which justice reigns are naive dreamers and "Potheads" (you know who you are).
"Doctors will also be trained to spot patients likely to become future terrorists."
Really? Is that from the published strategy? I must have read that 5 or 6 times and then reread the whole article again as I figured that I missed the point and it was an elaborate El Reg joke.
"A specialist police unit has removed 156 pieces of material in the last 15 months, the Times reports."
I'm guessing that means the police have removed 156 sites (or part thereof) from the internet at large? Not that they have removed 156 items from the black list, or 156 bits of lint from their jumpers...
"I'm guessing that means the police have removed 156 sites (or part thereof) from the internet at large? Not that they have removed 156 items from the black list, or 156 bits of lint from their jumpers..."
I doubt we can ever find out. They can produce any made up numbers to show how good they are then, when anyone is questioned about it, they can roll out the fear and boast about having removed 156 PIECES OF TERRORIST MATERIAL! Wow, thats 10 a month.
This way, the listener can imagine this to be boxes of C4, armalites, etc. When it could just as easily be words on a webpage.
Secrecy works against democracy.
I don't think
People become terrorists because they saw something questionable on the internet, at least not unless you want to start censoring news websites, forums, the rest of human life...
I don't think
... could be the Home Office's motto.
It's not what **I** want, Skippy...
...it's what the Tories want. and yes, I think that that level of censorship would fit their criteria quite nicely, thankyewverymuch!
Predicting terrorism is easy
You just need to check for jeans and a T-shirt.
My experience of the Met's specialist anti-terrorism detection capabilities are limited to trying to get into a defence trade show at Edexcel while wearing (gasp) jeans and a t-shirt.
I had left my company logo shirt and suit on the stand, cos I didn't fancy a walk across London in the summer in a suit or a tube ride with a baby-killer-corporation logo shirt.
He wasn't interested in my exhibitor pass or business cards - I obviously looked like a wrong-un. Meanwhile people were streaming in by simply wearing a nice suit. Eventually he got a call on his radio and wondered off - presumably somebody muslim looking wearing a suit was taxing their powers of logic.
The copper clearly wanted to do the right thing but knew that
1. he didn't really know how
2. his instruction were bogus
3. and he was getting it wrong.
I expect he was glad for an excuse to wonder off.
It is easier than that
Attempt to control the population and track every aspect of their lives either by government sponsored system or corporate greed machine, then censor the information available to them. Anyone who complains is a terrorist.
I believe the term you're looking for
is "cognitive dissonance". To paraphrase, that terrible moment when reality clashes with prejudice.
Or more properly:
Atherton J S (2011) Learning and Teaching; Cognitive Dissonance and learning [On-line: UK] retrieved 8 June 2011 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
Yes, it is currently my phrase of the week.
How will my Doctor know?
There are standard questionnaires Doctors use for measuring Anxiety and Depression. They ask about feelings of worthlessness, sleeping patterns, thoughts of self-harm, and so on.
Maybe they can add as a final question:
I have thought about becoming a terrorist -
1) Every day
2) Almost every day
3) Less than half the time
4) Very rarely or never
That would sort things out.
I can see this working
And so how are you feeling? Just relax now - hmmm - yes - well maybe take a little more gentle exercise a couple of times a week and perhaps stay off the fatty food to see if that settles down. Now I'm just looking at your blood count - yes that looks quite normal, your cholesterol is fine, no sign of diabetes so nothing to worry about there. So how do you feel about the restoration of the caliphate and have you had any problems passing water?
And it begins
Exactly what the 'conspiracy theorists' were saying when the IWF was first introduced. How long before it is extended to cover more things 'for the benefit of the people'.
Someone ask Theresa May what is the difference between this censorship and China's or Iran's or Syria's.
I think the difference is obviously that china's web blocking is state suppression of information whereas when the home office does it its because they know better than you whats good for you.
I feel like a terrorist.
You may hate this as much as I do.
But I daren't imagine what Labour would be up to had they got back in.
They would have convinced themselves that everything they did to trample on our freedoms had out full support and there would be nothing stopping them.
you have a problem if you think that either labour or con-dem ever had an original thought.
Their "serfs" (full-time-non-political-non-democratic-public-servants) do the thinking for them. All they have to bother their pretty little heads with are thoughts of allowing the unions to strike as long as they don't strike, and putting my gas bill up by 24% for "government obligation to help the environment"
Doctors, Terrorists and Perspective
Dr Harold Shipman killed more people than any terrorist in the UK, probably even more than the Lockerbie bomber.
Former terror suspects are now in the Northern Ireland Executive.
And this smells of naked political censorship, restricting what you can read in a democracy.
Strong nations confront terrorism, by refusing to sacrifice freedom for a little security.
I guess that makes us a weak and feeble nation.
before "climate skeptic" sites are on the dangerous list ?
Or political blogs ?
re "How long"
.. or, indeed, The Register? There is a disturbing level of free-thinking around here.
ask the doctors?
"Dr Harold Shipman killed more people than any terrorist in the UK, probably even more than the Lockerbie bomber."
Takes one to know one!
who is it
Who is it in Whitehall that is so up for these ideas? I can't see politicians thinking of them themselves, and they sound an awful lot like the crazy ideas the last lot had.
So Called Western Democracies
It doesn't matter which side of the fence you vote for, exactly the same shit happens.
I see plenty of people who get into screaming matches arguing the merits of left vs right in politics and none of them seem to understand that there is nothing between them.
Sure, are a lot of little things they do differently. The left sure does like its wealth redistribution schemes but when it comes to the big issues, war, terrorism, trampling on citizens rights and generally chasing bigger and bigger government at every opportunity then they are pretty much indistinguishable.
Clearly there are people behind the scenes who make the really big decisions. The public service mandarins have their part in that of course, but even they answer to faceless authorities who are the real string pullers.
Some think the Bilderburger Group are those people. Personally I'm not sure, which is sort of the point. Nobody knows who they are.
What is obvious is that the people we vote for are not the ultimate powers in our respective countries.
Shit like this is why I voted for you instead of Labour. Don't you bloody start with this rubbish too.
Yours; a voter.
This could be the break that Mystic Meg has been looking for.
>> WIKIPEDIA Ref: (For the literately-ignorant)...
"Nineteen Eighty-Four (sometimes written 1984) is a 1948 dystopian novel written by George Orwell, about an oligarchical, collectivist society. Life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control. The individual is always subordinated to the state, and it is in part this philosophy which allows the Party to manipulate and control humanity. In the Ministry of Truth..."
Thank "BB" that the Government is FINALLY getting around to the serious threat of THOUGHT-CRIME. And, I was afraid that the mindless-sheep (that the English People, had, so glaringly, become) might actually show some (or, ANY...) BACKBONE, and stand up to such obvious TYRANNY.
But, what do you expect from the most surveilled nation in the world, where the "citizens" actually allowed their-own government to deprive them of almost EVERY, basic, human-right (that has ever been fought, or died, for)..? ...including the RIGHTS of "privacy", and "self-defense"?
Though... I DO wonder what the English-People will do if there is an American Civil-War (I'm sorry... "massive civil unrest") now plainly expected by millions of U.S. citizens (many of whom, are actually preparing themselves for exactly this eventuality)... a growing number of, well-respected, "historians"... and which is actually being OFFICIALLY planned, and prepared, for, by numerous U.S. government institutions and agencies.
...the English will probably just do, whatever their government-propaganda departments tell them to do. I mean... after all... "THERE'S A WAR ON"... Right..?
War is Peace...
Freedom is Slavery...
Ignorance is Strength.
Obviously anyone who objects has something to hide! That's a line I get frequently from conservatives in my neck of the woods.
I can see the scene before me :
the next time one of the Foreign Office's more bathetic representatives follows the USA's ineffable Ms Clinton in castigating a foreign country's lamentable lack of respect for «human rights» in an international forum, that country's representative stands up and asks if the previous speaker is familiar with a certain Theresa May....
But of course, «our» media will only report the first part of the interchange and then turn to the necessity of bombing the bad guys in order to protect the population....
What is it with our fracking Govt?
Hayfever medication overdose?
First, that religious pseudo moralistic power-grab by the "think of the childrenz" gang, now this?
So, they're going to blacklist internets to prevent terrorism and radicalisation. Did it help the Russian Czar Nicholas II in 1917?
Oh, wait - there was no internets then and still they could not stop dissemination of bolshevik materials! How about Samizdat in the Soviet Union - did internets blacklist help then? No? Why not?
Perhaps, if we stop invading one country after another for no apparent reason other than creating "legacy" for incumbent Prime Ministers, the threat of terrorism will not be such a big threat in the first place?
Because in Soviet Russia
website blocks YOU!!
First they came for the pedophiles
and I did not speak out --
Because everyone hates pedos
Then they came for the Islamic Fundamentalists, and I did not speak out --
Because they were almost as bad as the pedos
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the Socialists, which was funny because it was the Socialists that started this process in the first place,
Then they came for the photographers in public places and the Wikileakers and the Playstation hackers and the iPhone jailbreakers and the filesharers and the fans of music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats" and the people who put their bins out on the wrong day, etc... and me,
So I blew them all to hell with IEDs I constructed by following instructions in The Anarchist's Cookbook, which was ironic because I only downloaded it and subsequently got blacklisted because I wanted to arm myself against further errosions of freedom.