Terror, terror everywhere: Call the filter police, there's a madman (or two) in town The UK government routinely rips up its anti-extremism, counter-terror, extremism-terror, whatever strategy in favour of what Home Secretary Theresa May typically describes as an even tougher approach to thwart baddies who seek to do us harm. On Monday morning, the latest Whitehall document, Counter-Extremism Strategy (PDF), …
Balderdash.
If stuff is deemed illegal:
1) Court process to prove it
2) Attempt to prosecute originators / take down source.
Anything else is contrary to human rights, natural law, civil rights and doesn't even work.
The ISP or "Communications service providers" are simply the data equivalent (virtual and physical) of water pipes or power cables.
I detect that the UK government is extremely protective of its secret organisations and extreme in its promotion of terrorism as an extreme risk to personal safety.
I think we should denounce such things immediately and Communications service providers (I presume they mean twitter, google, etc, but I see no reason not to include newspapers) should take down all government communication in a fit of, er, self-censorship.
Not in the UK, they filter first according to the IWF list, which looks like it's about to get greatly expanded.
Which will mean that anyone interested in that kind of thing will first connect to a VPN or TOR before doing what they were going to do anyway. I have no idea if that makes things more difficult for the police to do their work or not but it could do.
Anything else is contrary to human rights, natural law, civil rights and doesn't even work.
That depends on what the intended purpose is. If it's to stop the spread of extremism then yes it would be broken.
If on the other hand it's to scare people into saying nothing & quell any possibility of inconvenient things being said because of the fear of repercussions then perhaps it does what it's supposed to.
I used to worry about whether I had to change from being a post-trotsky stalinist to being a leninist.. or was it the other way round... either way it was important if you wanted to keep out of trouble.
Now I have to keep up with the latest thoughts from Chairman May... I wonder if she's got an RSS feed so I can make sure I don't fall behind.
Anything else is contrary to human rights, natural law, civil rights and doesn't even work.
What human rights? What natural law? What civil rights? May I remind you that:
1. This government and Joseph Vissarionovich May especially have a goal to take Britain _OUT_ of the human rights convention so that we are on par with Belarus in terms of law and order.
2. There is no natural law in Britain, there is common law which is a millenia worth collection of drivel produced by courts which were driven by either the interests of the elite or the political interests of the day. That drivel still till this day includes being able to kill a Scotsman in broad daylight (if you do it with a bow and arrow and it is in York), burning weather forecasters and witches. It also includes systematic, continuous and relentless removal over time of any rights which were granted during those precious minutes in the island history when fundamental rights were written down, signed and rubber stamped such as the Magna Charta, The Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights.
3. Civil Rights. Oh, those ones. Yes, there was a Bill of Rights on this island. 1689. When I told this to junior and gave it to him to read it he was shocked to his core. We have all these rights? No my dear. You do not. There is a popular mania known as "Parliament is Sovereign and Shall Not Be Bound" which is used to justify removal of any right every time it is inconvenient to Whitehall.
From that perspective, there is one thing we definitely lost out from being one of the only two country not conquered by Napolen - a decent legal system which cannot be subverted so easily and which has the concept of FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Ones that the "not bound" parliament can be told to go f*** off when it tries to remove them. This is especially valid now when we have Joseph Vissarionovich May as our potential candidate as the next prime minister if the Tories win again. Can we have a f*** constitution. It is about time (in fact long overdue) so we actually can call ourselves a civilized country with law and order.
Unfortunately even if we *did* get a written Constitution, instead of getting clear, declarative rules, they would be so laden down with weasel phrases like "except to prevent terrorism or crime or protect children (or to stop anyone we don't like being able to exercise these rights)" that it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on :-(
Unfortunately even if we *did* get a written Constitution, instead of getting clear, declarative rules...
A constitution - even if it was clearly and concisely written - probably wouldn't do much good in the long term.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
"A constitution - even if it was clearly and concisely written - probably wouldn't do much good in the long term."
The written American Constitution was only ever of use for boring students so badly that they will remain quiet in class.
The unwritten constitution is the only one that's ever been applicable in American politics.
@AC: That "millennia worth of drivel" has kept the peace in Britain now for 300 years, which is considerably longer than any other country I know of. As for "able to kill a Scotsman in broad daylight (if you do it with a bow and arrow and it is in York)" - is one of those urban myths that would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. Just try it and see how far you get. You must be able to find a Scotsman in York you don't like. "Burning weather forecasters and witches" - again, this is just drivel made up by someone who knows how to generate eyeballs online.
The "Bill of Rights" of 1689 is all about the rights of Parliament, not The People. The only significant personal right we've lost since then is the right to keep and bear arms.
Britain has a constitution, thank you very much. Since "written constitutions" became fashionable in the 18th century, those major countries that have adopted them - think France, America, Spain, Germany, Russia - have been through all kinds of hell. Britain has been a beacon of stability. If you seriously believe that "a f*** constitution" equates to "a civilized country with law and order", you're not paying attention.
The fact that parliament hasn't been overthrown by the masses, isn't exactly proof that our way of ruling the great unwashed is better.
And if we're talking about beacons of stability we might as well mention every megalomaniac that ever ruled as a despot tyrant, because their countries were also beacons of stability.
Anything else is contrary to human rights, natural law, civil rights and doesn't even work.
The UK is allied and bestest of buddy with Saudi Arabia so human rights, civil rights and natural law can fuck right back off to wherever they came from.
And "doesn't even work" implies the existence of some outcome beneficial to Government and "us" - this does not exists! Anything left on the table for "us" is WASTE, than must be eliminated (rather - hoovered up and dispersed amongst cronies and quangos).
".... Court process to prove it...." So you did read the article, right? Did you miss the bit about 4000 take-downs a month and the problem is increasing? You are insisting on the court process preceding the take-down, which would lead to a massive backlog and leave extremist material up for possibly years whilst time-wasting appeals rolled through.
".....Anything else is contrary to human rights, natural law, civil rights and doesn't even work......" You are frothing along the legal lines of assumption of innocence meaning material cannot be touched until a crime has been proven, which is legally wrong. Wrong because the Police do not need to wait for a crime to happen, they can act to prevent crime without interfering with the assumption of innocence. As an example, if the cops come across two men brawling in the street they do not have to work out which one was legally wrong before breaking up the fight, nor do they need to immediately arrest or charge anyone on the spot upon breaking up the fight. If they do arrest anyone then they can do s without having to hold a court case in the street, that comes later after the gathering of evidence/statements. The authorities already have the legal powers to insist on a take-down, all this review does is push the process more onto the ISPs.
I had a nice long response here for Matt's post.
But, considering where he comes from, its just not worth the effort. It is far easier to point out that we can look at Matt's response as being an attempt to radicalise the Reg Commentariat, and leave it at that.
"I had a nice long response here for Matt's post....." Strange, normally this kind of empty response from the sheeple comes with an accusation of a "straw man", are you not even able to make that standard blather? What a lazy sheep you are!
".... considering where he comes from...." I seem to be coming from somewhere with points you cannot counter, you mean?
"....its just not worth the effort...." Is that a lack of effort or actually just a lack of original thought? LOL!
It seems to be a staple with the tinfoil-attired that they can rebleat no end of nonsense that has been spoonfed to them, but when they are asked to actually formulate an original thought they are struck dumb.
OMG - there's 4000 pieces of information being posted on the internet every month that say things that someone don't want me to read! What if they miss one and I read it by accident and become "radicalised"?
How about, rather than constantly banning this material, creating a single official website with the best valid counter arguments and supporting evidence to every bad/wrong/extreme idea that's presented? This way anyone "at risk" of being radicalised can be pointed at these without fighting a continuous propaganda war and inventing new ways to deny our freedom? I refer you to the answer at counter-extremism.gov/12345 etc. This would work because "extremists" are always wrong, right?.
"How about, rather than constantly banning this material, creating a single official website with the best valid counter arguments and supporting evidence to every bad/wrong/extreme idea that's presented?"
Sadly, that'd never work because the best valid counter argument to a bad idea is usually something else the ruling bodies consider "radical".
Of course, they could just use the counter-arguments they use now; it'd be a single page consisting of, "Because terrorists threaten our freedom! Think of the children! You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide! REPORT ALL SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR!"
Of course, you could only read it* after filling out a 12 page questionnaire detailing ever factor of your life, "to enhance services".
*Well, not it exactly, except on alternate Tuesdays that are even numbered, between the hours of 2am and 2:02am. Otherwise you'll either see a 404 error, or a note saying the page is currently being revamped, try again later.
"are insisting on the court process preceding the take-down..."
Yes. That's how our law is intended to work. Do you, by way of analogy, agree with the way DMCA takedowns occur on YouTube? i.e. the takedown happens if any complaint is received, regardless of source (including ones generated by bots using algorithms), and then the channel owner has the right to appeal against it? Should this be how our law works across the board? We *think* you burgled that house, so you're arrested, stuck in jail, assumed guilty but may *appeal* your innocence? That idea of law doesn't belong in the UK or any "progressive" country surely.
"4000 take-downs a month and the problem is increasing?"
Evidence please, rather than hearsay from those under scrutiny or other vested interests. Should be a simple matter to ask the courts, in their capacity as an independent power, to release a verified count of cases without revealing any details at all. Of course, if these takedown occurred without judicial oversight then there would be no such record. And no legal process.
"Wrong because the Police do not need to wait for a crime to happen, they can act to prevent crime without interfering with the assumption of innocence."
Actually, according to the head of MI5, this is not the case. In a recent interview on Radio 4, when questioned about the Rigby case, he noted that the intelligence services had Adubwale under surveillance for some time before the attack was carried out, but they could not act as Adubwale had not committed any crime or infringement he could be held for. So, either you're wrong, or the head of MI5 lied, live, on air, to the nation.
"....That's how our law is intended to work...." Typical Boring Bernie, failing to understand that laws evolve as the situation changes. Comparing extremist material meant to incite murder with your pet freetard peeve of the DCMA is simply too clueless for words. No-one is stuck in jail when a notice to take down extremist material is issued, though a subsequent court case may result in the offender going to jail if they are in breach of anti-terrorism laws. Please try and keep your frothing even vaguely on-topic. mmmkay?
"....but they could not act as Adubwale had not committed any crime....." Adubwale had not incited murder or made any threats, though he had visited sites that did. He also mixed with company that read and spread extremist material. Thus he was noted as a person of interest but could not be arrested under the law as it stood. His very case would seem to be a perfect argument for the exact laws being proposed - Adubwale was spurred on to the murder by incitement from extremists, if he had been unable to find their extremist material it is more likely he would not have committed the murder of Lee Rigby. Of course, that would still leave the problem of known extremists like Adubwale's partner in crime, Adebolajo, recruiting idiots like Adubwale, but then shrieking "liberals" like you would suffer exploding heads if laws were passed that allowed such people to be detained. Oh, hold on a sec - isn't that exactly why the law in question is proposed, to make it easier to deal with those that take advantage of our laws to attack us? Thanks for making that point.
'Won't somebody please think of the cheeeldren' obviously didn't work when it came to filters, so now they've moved down to 'Because terror-nazi-geddon!!!' How long before they work their way down to the real reason: 'because we can'?
How many people have died because of terrorism in the last 10 years in the UK as opposed to those killed by other causes, including domestic violence? And yet they're busy cutting the budget for the police and other organisations that can actually help there.
Bees and wasps have caused as many deaths in the UK as terrorism in the past decade, an independent watchdog has found.
[...]
During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom," the report, lead by David Anderson QC, said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/terrorism-bees_n_1633308.html
".....Precisely one...." So, that lack of deaths due to terrorism just couldn't possibly be because of the efforts to prevent terror attacks, right? Your argument is as logically flawed as saying there is no need for the MMR vaccine as your kids didn't get the measles after having the MMR jab.
Well, here is the flaw in your argument. The argument isn't that one should cut all existing efforts to prevent terrorism. What they are talking about here is an increase in effort. So to take your example. It would be like the government to ban gathering of people in public places to prevent spreading of the measles. That is, today, with a working vaccine and next to nil new cases.
"....It would be like the government to ban gathering of people in public places to prevent spreading of the measles. That is, today, with a working vaccine and next to nil new cases." Actually, your example is a perfect case for what I said. No new cases in kids that were vaccinated, plenty of cases in the kids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Disease_outbreaks) left vulnerable because their idiot parents swallowed the unscientific rubbish spouted by celebutards and attention-seekers like Jenny McCarthy. What you are advocating in not allowing the suppression of extremism is the equivalent of not removing the scientifically-incorrect anti-MMR information out there, but instead leaving it out there for other kids to be put at risk because to do so would admit you were wrong about the MMR vaccine. In your case it is because you have swallowed a load of media hype about "privacy intrusion" spoonfed to you by more celebutards and attention-seekers like Assange. Ignoring the home-grown radicals like the London Tube bombers, there seem to be plenty of idiots in the UK and other Western countries that have happily traipsed off to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS - they are the proof that there will be the "unvaccinated" that will ignore the mountains of material explaining how wrong they are and they will believe the extremist dogma, just as you are proof there are those that will swallow anything in denying they exist.
So, that lack of deaths due to terrorism just couldn't possibly be because of the efforts to prevent terror attacks, right?
It might be, but it would be nice to have some evidence to back up that suggestion. Just as I'd like to see some evidence backing up the need* for Theresa May's latest lurch down the slippery slope.
* Need in the sense of keeping safe all UK citizens (Muslims most definitely included), rather than need for a Tory Home Secretary with an eye on the party leadership to keep a high profile amongst the party faithful.
"".....Precisely one...." So, that lack of deaths due to terrorism just couldn't possibly be because of the efforts to prevent terror attacks, right? Your argument is as logically flawed as saying there is no need for the MMR vaccine as your kids didn't get the measles after having the MMR jab."
I didn't make an argument. I made a statement and you manufactured a straw man to match what you wish I'd said.
Here's my actual argument. Nobody sane is suggesting there shouldn't be an anti-terrorism apparatus. However, that apparatus needs to be accountable and legal. The Snooper's Charter will be neither, and Theresa May is attempting to concentrate these powers in the state, at the expense of the judiciary while eroding other key rights legislation to make that possible.
".....I didn't make an argument. I made a statement...." Yup, and I pointed out the stupidity in that statement with a simple argument you again seem unable to answer. This is my surprised face, honest!
"....and you manufactured a straw man to match what you wish I'd said...." Ah, back to the typical baltherer's shrieking of straw men I see. Seriously, when are you lot going to some up with something original when you can't answer the point made?
"....However, that apparatus needs to be accountable and legal...." Under English Law, the operation of the UK anti-terror forces have been completely legal and accountable simply because the law did allow them to operate as they did. This new law is simply extending that already legal operation to cover new areas of electronic incitement.
You seem to think the authorities have been operating under a whim rather than understanding that there have been anti-terror-related laws and censorship of extremism in the UK for centuries. The anti-terrorism laws stem from the rather English restraint and the sense of fair play that let the original revolutionary Anarchists seek asylum in the UK from Europe in the late 19th century. The eventual backlash led to the UK's first immigration control laws as a response to what was seen as the extremism of the day, Anarchism.
Legal censorship of extremism and obscenity in the UK has been going on arguably since the Licensing Order of 1643 replaced the previously ad-hoc censorship of the English monarchy's Star Chamber, and was intended to cover the large number of lurid newspapers of the day. A later extension of the censorship powers of HMG can be seen in the Theatrical Licensing Act of 1737, which gave the Crown the legal right to restrict the content of plays for "socially unacceptable material". So, it's not only already accountable and legal, thanks, but has been for a very long while.
" lack of deaths due to terrorism just couldn't possibly be because of the efforts to prevent terror attacks, right? Your argument is as logically flawed as saying there is no need for the MMR vaccine as your kids didn't get the measles after having the MMR jab."
Except statistical evidence and numeric data is easily and readily available that shows the reduction of MMR cases in the wake of the vaccine and how, when the vaccine is not applied, the numbers increase. All we want is solid evidence rather than being expected to simply take the word of those with vested interests in maintaining, and expanding, the security state.
"....vested interests.... security state." LOL, your choice of words make it very clear you have no intention of ever accepting any argument or stats that would support those of the authorities. Your tinfoil is showing!
"....statistical evidence...." Whilst it is probably a pointless exercise trying to pry the tinfoil off your eyes, poking fun at your bias/delusions is too easy to pass up. Here's a very simple stat - number of people killed by home-grown Islamic extremists in the 2005 London Tube bombing was 52; number of people killed in the UK by Islamic extremists after the Terrorism Act of 2006, a direct result of the 2005 bombing, granted the Police extra powers to crack down on extremists - one.
The large number of Muslims that have travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS just shows there is still a massive problem with extremism in the UK and that people are being lead astray by extremist material, some of it online. Please do try and deny any Brits are fighting for ISIS as every single one is an home-grown convert to extremism. Including British-born former Gitmo detainee Jamal al-Harith, whose release from Gitmo you handwringers and bleedinhearts campaigned for and assured us he was "just a harmless soul and not a jihadi", only now he's off fighting for ISIS too. He is the perfect example of the home-grown extremist - born Ronald Fiddler, converted to Islam, then exposed to extremist material and encouraged to "explore his faith" in Pakistan, before joining the fighting in Afghanistan and ending up in Gitmo (ironically, after having been imprisoned by the Taliban). Al-Harith's exposure to extremism came about before the 2006 Act. Hopefully the new laws will stop others following his path.
Regarding Lee Rigby: less than ten years ago, his death wouldn't have been classed as terrorism, but the work of a couple of thugs with an excuse. If we applied the same principle now (not the one the police and government want us to use), then there have been no acts of terrorism, compared to five unlawful deaths by the paramilitary police force we have had forced on us.
"....wouldn't have been classed as terrorism....thugs with an excuse.... then there have been no acts of terrorism..." So the London Tube bombers were just "thugs"? I think the families of the 52 killed might have something to say about your (IMHO) completely idiotic statement. Please, before your next post, do try and think beyond the limits you have imposed upon yourself with your socio-political blinkers.
In other words, the Public is not able to handle the issue and must be protected from it.
Doing so is not going to help the situation, it will only keep it under wraps. That is how you get rabid conspiracy theorists.
Let them splash their hate on their websites. Educate your people properly and teach them the values of civilization and democracy. Maybe even teach them to think critically (ah, I know, anathema for a proper gubbermint official).
That is the only way people will recognize barbary when it is visible.
But yeah, that's probably the long run. Maybe even for after the next election. So it'll never happen.
Spot on and if they really do want to "tackle extremism", hiding is not the answer. In fact you do the complete opposite:
1 - Tell everyone what the "extremists" think, using undeniable evidence. Put them under the spotlight.
2 - Rip it apart with easy to understand, logical explanations.
3 - Laugh at them.
No one can take an idiot seriously so they have no power. Hiding from them makes them seem charismatic and mysterious.
"3 - Laugh at them."
Would it be possible, I wonder, for ISPs to recognise extremist web pages and enclose them between
<font face = "comic-sans"> ... </font>
tags (or the appropriate stylesheet, for those of us living in the 21st century*)? That way surely nobody would take them seriously.
* that probably excludes most extremists.
Yeah... I really, really hate to be put in the position of seeming to side with Theresa May, but...
This "educate people properly and they'll see through the propaganda" mantra? This is not a new line. It's been put forward time after time, most famously by John Stuart Mill but it predates him by a long way. It's never worked.
See, it's rooted in the basic liberal fallacy - the idea that that everyone is fundamentally the same, and if they see things differently from you, that's just a failure of education.
Sadly, it ain't so. Some people are too stupid to understand the arguments. A much larger number simply won't listen to them, for a whole range of reasons. And an even larger number have personal priorities, motivations and allegiances that your model simply doesn't account for. They're not "against democracy" because they fail to appreciate its fundamentally inclusive and benign nature: they're against you because you represent the bourgeoise/white/adult/Americanised/establishment/insert bogey-group of choice that they've been taught to despise, and there's nothing you can say that they won't immediately brand as propaganda - in much the same way as you'd probably regard a story from, say, Fox News.
No degree of "education" short of wholesale brainwashing can "cure" extremism. It's not a disease. It's a much deeper problem than that.
because you represent the bourgeoise/white/adult/Americanised/establishment/insert bogey-group of choice that they've been taught to despise
(emphasis added by me)
On one hand you suggestion that education is irrelevant and on the other that it *is* important since it's the source of the hatred.
Is the timing of the education the only issue here?
When censorship occurs all that ends up happening is that the people being censored move their activities underground in a way that's more difficult to follow. The various parts of government that are supposed to be protecting us from the nutters seem to be making their jobs more difficult by supporting overbearing filtering like this, especially since it will give people even more of an incentive to encrypt everything even when they are completely innocent themselves.
Unless the governments unstated aim is to protect the state from it's citizens rather than simply protect the citizens, why on earth would they do this?
...The same Theresa May who stated that the Wilson Doctrine would remain unchallenged ensuring that the highest echelons of politics remain exempted from state surveillance? You know, the same one who had to admit that a number of complaints from victims of alleged child abuse who submitted testimonies to the home office website were "accidentally deleted"? The very same Ms. May who oversaw the dismissal of the senior Detective who said VIP child sex abuse claims were 'credible' during Operation Midlands?
Ah....Yes, yes it is.... I can't think of anyone more qualified to comment on such things!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34574731
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3280128/Off-case-Detective-said-VIP-child-sex-abuse-claims-credible-replaced-head-Operation-Midland.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/15/submissions-to-theresa-mays-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-accidentally-deleted
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
