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 Crowd-Sourcing Censorship

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the tell-us-everything dept.

Censorship 262

angry tapir writes "The UK public can report 'terrorism-related' Web sites to authorities for removal from the Internet under a new program launched by the British government. The program is a way in which the government is seeking to enforce the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006. These laws make it illegal to have or to share information intended to be useful to terrorists, and ban glorifying terrorism or urging people to commit terrorist acts."

cancel ×

262 comments

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

Me! Me! (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020540)

I hereby report "slashdot.org".

What is considered "terrorism-related"? (4, Interesting)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020564)

Scaring large groups of the population by threatening to report them for a terrorism-related fate of certain doom could in itself be considered an act of terrorism... Maybe not by the standards of the 2000 and 2006 laws, but surely by the future 2012 law am I required to proactively report your attempted terrorism on "slashdot.org".

Re:What is considered "terrorism-related"? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020590)

That's exactly what a terrorist would say.

But we got you now, you terroristic slashdotter who only wants to slash our freedoms and... damage us over time?

Re:What is considered "terrorism-related"? (5, Funny)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020676)

By that time everyone would be on IPv6 and their site won't work.. https://reporting.direct.gov.uk/bin/url_checker.php?url=ipv6.google.com [direct.gov.uk]

Re:What is considered "terrorism-related"? (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020712)

Haha, nice! The response at that URL sums it up perfectly. :-)

Re:What is considered "terrorism-related"? (1)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020978)

well the uk site will not work IF no-script is on !
so even if we are not using ipv6 ...
############
http://www.imagebam.com/image/2b7d3366693131 [imagebam.com]

Re:What is considered "terrorism-related"? (3, Insightful)

Chief Camel Breeder (1015017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020856)

Following the links in TFA leads to a goverment web-page listing one-line descriptions of things they consider illegal. But their definitions are broken. They include this:

web pages that show pictures, videos or descriptions of violence against anyone due to their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity

That would be...news sites? Maybe we should all report news.bbc.co.uk?

Re:What is considered "terrorism-related"? (2, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021218)

sexual orientation or gender identity

Hmmm... does "Slashdot reader" also constitute a 'sexual orientation and/or gender identity'? :-)

My non-scientific list of common gender-identities in least-to-most discriminated order:
- Heterosexuals
- Hot lesbians
- Bisexual women
- Metrosexuals
- Feminist lesbians
- Homosexuals (male)
- Bisexual males
- Fetishists / 'Deviant' sexuals
- Slashdot reader (virgins)

Since roughly 50% of the population sexually discriminates against the average Slashdot reader you have reached the bottom of the list... Please report anyone that deserves to suffer for this grave injustice. ;-)

Re:What is considered "terrorism-related"? (0)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020894)

What is considered "terrorism-related"?

Here's some information linked from the reporting page:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Counterterrorism/DG_183993 [direct.gov.uk]

Scaring large groups of the population by threatening to report them for a terrorism-related fate of certain doom could in itself be considered an act of terrorism...

That's quite a stretch. If you want an actual guideline of terrorism according to UK law, the following is a link to the full text of the Terrorism Act 2000 (or TACT), and right up the top, we have a definition:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_2#pt1-l1g1 [opsi.gov.uk]

Scaring people is not enough. It actually has to be a threat.

Re:Me! Me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020714)

Google maps! And any other Google service, and Live, and wikipedia, and... I'd like to give to the UK Home Office a full list of sites to block but unfortunately its reporting site is too small to contain it.

Re:Me! Me! (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021044)

So from the perspective of King Geo.III any websites dealing with the American Revolution would be banned.
From a more modern perspective the U.K. doesn't enjoy the right to talk about revolting against their own government.
Sometimes we need to remember it's good to live stateside.

"Removal from the internet"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020542)

Good luck with that.

No, seriously, all the best to those making a grand attempt to remove something from the internet without just causing it to be spread around even more. I imagine you'll have many fun years of failure.

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020570)

I tipped them off about 4chan.org and their constant hate speech. Unfortunately, the process seems anonymous, so I'm now the number one suspect.

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020586)

it'd be great if someone just blew them the fuck up.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020774)

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (Score:-1, Flamebait)

literally.

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (4, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020666)

I wonder how many things are removed from the Internet that we simply don't get to hear about...

Sure, there are high-profile cases in which it backfires and causes the offending material to be spread far and wide, but I'd be willing to bet that that happens in a tiny minority of the cases, and that in the rest, almost no-one not directly involved ever even knows.

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (4, Interesting)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020836)

I wonder how many things are removed from the Internet that we simply don't get to hear about...

Good question. There are websites, such as The Memory Hole, which specifically try to maintain records of things which perhaps the powerful controlling interests of mainstream media would like to scrub from history. Like Benazir Bhutto's confirmation that Bin Laden was dead. Or the Pentagon admitting that it targeted civilian water supplies in Iraq. Or Israel claiming to reprimand two top army officers for ordering the Jan. 15 attack on the UN compound in Gaza last year that used white phosphorus shells, but actually not disciplining them at all. That sort of thing, of which there is plenty. Project Censored does a yearly round up of the most important stories ignored by the mainstream media.

There are the things which disappear because no one gives a crap. (My old Geocities website)

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (1)

mayhem79 (891695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020738)

I agree, instead of taking down sites (espcially ones outsaide the UK), I think it might be easier for the government to produce a black-list and form UK ISP to enforce it using laws and policy.

Now theres a worrying thought, does anyone happen to know if theres such a thing in place in the UK currently?

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (3, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020744)

Good luck with that.

No, seriously, all the best to those making a grand attempt to remove something from the internet without just causing it to be spread around even more. I imagine you'll have many fun years of failure.

Actually, for all practical purposes they can do exactly this. It transpires that for all practical purposes we have a Great Firewall of Britain - and very few people were aware it even existed until recently:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ [theregister.co.uk]

How it's implemented depends on your ISP. One or two put up an error page saying "Sorry, you can't look at this" - but most simply block the TCP connection in the first place so it appears to a casual observer like the site in question is down.

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020878)

This is similar to the way the largest Irish broadband provider (EIRCOM) prevents its users from reaching thepiratebay.org

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020974)

Note that it's not a government-mandated censor, it's opt-in by ISPs and run by a non-government organisation (the Internet Watch Foundation, which seems to have no mandate and no accountability). Some ISPs don't opt in, so you get full uncensored access, although the large ones do.

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020850)

Yep. Its all very well working from the Stasis operating manual, but they didn't have to contend with modern information technology...

Re:"Removal from the internet"? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020970)

I suppose you can't really make something dissapear; but you can make it so obscure that masses are unlikely to stumble upon it.

A bit Orwellian, you say? Quite fitting, since it's UK...

First Post and Report (2, Funny)

trancemission (823050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020544)

I report google [google.co.uk]

Re:First Post and Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020708)

Mods, this is definitely not redundant. The first post said "slashdot.org" (in a very successful attempt at being funny) and this one is giving Google UK as an example of a website that can help terrorists, something which we should all be pondering about.

Unclear summary (1)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020560)

So, if a terrorist does a Google search for info about weapons, will Google be censored?

Re:Unclear summary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020596)

Of course not. These laws are intended to target powerless minorities and put the fear of God into clueless halfwits. The British government isn't actually stupid enough to believe they can control the flow of information, or brave enough to take on those with any real power for that matter.

Re:Unclear summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020720)

The British government isn't actually stupid enough to believe they can control the flow of information,

Which British government is this? Clearly not the same one I'm familiar with.

Re:Unclear summary (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020982)

The British government isn't actually stupid enough to...

There is no true sentence which starts this way.

Re:Unclear summary (2, Informative)

cheesewire (876598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020652)

Not quite, from TFA:

People can report Web sites on Direct.co.uk by filling out a Web-based form. The form includes categories to describe what's on the Web site, such as "terrorist training material" or "hate crimes."

So when we find some .co.uk site with instructions on how to take down our infrastructure, we can report it. Although it then goes onto say while basically a good idea, few people who come across actually useful info will know what to do with it, followed by some lawyer quoted with this little gem:

"I don't think the police anticipate a huge number of submissions."

Now the form seems to have been publicized, maybe he'll be proved wrong?

Catch 22 (5, Funny)

netpixie (155816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020574)

Citizen: "Ossifer, I've looked at this website and it is terism"
Plod: "So you admit to looking at terism? Go directly to Belmarsh. Do not pass go"

Re:Catch 22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020700)

Terism? Really?

US and UK government are melding (3, Interesting)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020576)

Always a horrifying thought, being reported by your neighbors.

    I work with an elderly West German lady. She was telling me that her East German friends had grown a lifetime of distrust for just about everyone. Some East Germans that grew up steeped in this mindset still keep new friends at arm's length, even today.

Also, the story reminded me of this gem:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ [whitehouse.gov]

Re:US and UK government are melding (2, Interesting)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020598)

Tagged this story as "stasi"

I'd like to report New Labour's web site (4, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020584)

Because they scare the sh*t out of me, and I'm pretty sure they're doing it to influence my vote.

Re:I'd like to report New Labour's web site (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021016)

When I applied for security clearance, one of the questions that I had to answer was 'have you ever tried to overthrow the government by violent, political, or other means?' Every election so far I have tried to overthrow the government by political means, namely by voting for people who are not part of the government to replace ones that are. When a party in the UK gains a majority, the leader is invited by the monarch to form a new government. Overthrowing the government periodically is a normal part of the democratic process, so I wondered a bit about who wrote this question.

Fortunately, I was 18 when I filled in the form and there hadn't been an election since I was old enough to vote, so I could honestly answer 'no'.

Re:I'd like to report New Labour's web site (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021076)

When I applied for security clearance, one of the questions that I had to answer was 'have you ever tried to overthrow the government by violent, political, or other means?'

I'm not sure if you're misremembering it, or they've changed it, but I filled in the forms the other week (despite already holding a current clearance - silly customer doesn't trust the usual clearance scheme and runs their own in parallel that uses the same form...) and that question pertains to "the democratic process", not the government.

Come to think of it though, I do remember some merriment along those lines the first time I applied (8 or so years ago), so perhaps they have changed it...

Re:I'd like to report New Labour's web site (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021170)

It was back around 2000 or 2001, so hopefully they've fixed it by now. I did point out the error when I submitted the form the first time.

Knee jerk gov response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020600)

This is so annoying in two main ways. One, the banned site can be up again in minutes (under a new web name), so that does not help and two, the wording of the ban covers such a wide range of meaning as to make it a blank order to close any site in the world, after all even the bbc site covers news about terror so it that no illegal?

Tackle the terrorist ideas at their roots, a light in the darkness, so to speak. That will be more effective.

Report your friends, family and neighbours... (5, Insightful)

mayhem79 (891695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020612)

What worries me is the term: 'intended to be useful to terrorists'; this is so broad a definition, in theory anything could be deemed as useful to terrorist. For example, how to fly a plane, how to drive a car, self defense techniques. It also concerns me what implications to freedoms this may have on non-violent polictical protest sites i.e. any site that may critise a governments policy. I am a UK citizen and am becoming increasingly worried as my freedoms are being slowly litigated for my 'own good' to combat terrorism. Reminds me of a joke on Red Dwarf: 'Report your friends, family and neighbours... wonderful prizes to be won.'

Re:Report your friends, family and neighbours... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020622)

I am a UK citizen and am becoming increasingly worried as my freedoms are being slowly litigated for my 'own good' to combat terrorism.

Finally woken up have you?
Too bad you kept hitting the snooze button for the last decade or so.

Re:Report your friends, family and neighbours... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020874)

So, let's get wikipedia banned, since that has plenty of material useful for terrorists. By all means it should be blocked under this law, and since every reporter nowadays gets plenty of information from wikipedia, the media will crucify this law in a heartbeat.

Re:Report your friends, family and neighbours... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021126)

So, let's get wikipedia banned, since that has plenty of material useful for terrorists

Good luck proving that it is intended to be useful for terrorists.

Re:Report your friends, family and neighbours... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020976)

Terrorists nead to eat and drink too, so any information pointing to nearby shops is already 'useful to terrorists'.

Extra restrictions during election times. (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021008)

what implications to freedoms this may have on non-violent polictical protest sites i.e. any site that may critise a governments policy

You need to read an article from The Register [theregister.co.uk] which points out that a LOT of the restrictions which apply to print media could be used to limit web-speech during a general election.

The only reason we still appear to have a more-or-less free society is that the government (whichever colour we have/will-have) have not yet chosen to enforce the laws they have already put in place.

Re:Extra restrictions during election times. (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021154)

So how would you combat the potential problem of groups (or individuals) with large sums of money seeking to influence an election in the immediate run-up to it?

Or would you not, and let anyone do, say or print whatever they want, and if it sways the result then so be it?

(Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested - although at the moment, I'm leaning in favour of preventing e.g. Murdoch using the Sun to try to swing the result in the way he wanted it to go)

Re:Extra restrictions during election times. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31021198)

I'm leaning in favour of preventing e.g. Murdoch using the Sun to try to swing the result in the way he wanted it to go)

You should be worried more about George Soros.

Are they out to make everyone a terrorist? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020616)

H'm, if I go surfing for terrorist websites so I can report them , won't I just get a visit from men dressed in black with machine guns 'cos they think I'm a terrorsist?

  I think I'll pass long term incarceration and interrogations aren't really my thing.

One day they'll have to confront it head on (4, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020626)

These laws make it illegal to have or to share information intended to be useful to terrorists, and ban glorifying terrorism or urging people to commit terrorist acts.

I would hazard to guess based on the media reports that Britain's radical Muslim problem is only topped by the Netherlands (where prominent critics of Islam have been routinely murdered or credibly threatened with murder). There was even a survey done of the British Muslim population that said that about 40% of the young Muslims in the country want to live under Sharia.

The British government is going to have to start rounding up the radical clerics and deporting them. Hell, banish them from the United Kingdom altogether. The problem is, they know they'll inflame a lot of anti-British sentiment if they do that. Then they'll have to either start cracking skulls left and right or start en masse rounding up and deporting the Muslims who go to those mosques, deport them and put a marker on them that permanently marks them as a ne'erdoweller who has no business ever setting foot on British soil again.

The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt. The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily.

The political correctness of the British government is not doing genuine moderate Muslims any good because it's creating an environment where the extremists can thrive under "diversity" and the native population can be slowly radicalized against the entire immigrant population starting from the working class up (IIRC, the British working class were the primary support behind the BNP when it recently won a small, but worrisome amount of the vote for the first time).

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (2, Insightful)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020664)

"The British government is going to have to start rounding up the radical clerics and deporting them. Hell, banish them from the United Kingdom altogether. The problem is, they know they'll inflame a lot of anti-British sentiment if they do that. Then they'll have to either start cracking skulls left and right or start en masse rounding up and deporting the Muslims who go to those mosques, deport them and put a marker on them that permanently marks them as a ne'erdoweller who has no business ever setting foot on British soil again."

Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!

"The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt. The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily."

Could we cut them out by some kind of economic sanctions based on religious belief? Maybe just prevent them from owning businesses and stuff. Or deport them! Do you know if this plan has ever been tried before?

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020690)

You obviously have little experience having to live in the same neighbourhood as rude and hostile Muslim immigrants. Try it sometime and then get back to me.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020758)

"You obviously have little experience having to live in the same neighbourhood as rude and hostile Muslim immigrants. Try it sometime and then get back to me."

I have lived in areas with immigrants (Finsbury Park in London and Radford in Nottingham, for example) and even areas where there were community tensions. I'm just not xenophobic, so I talked to people, engaged them as humans and made friends.

Humans are pretty much humans, and to demonise an entire class of people
a) isn't that productive no matter who they are;
b) ironically just empowers extremists on both sides;
c) means you miss out on getting to know interesting people/eat really good food.

You also miss the point that multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London. Why would you want to have less variety?

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020860)

Congratulations on your obvious moral superiority. Now you can tell everyone that some of your best friends are black (or brown), because where they see colour, you see people.

The problem is that not everyone is as tolerant as you. Racism isn't an exclusively white thing, no matter what the BBC might say. To understand what MikeRT and benjfowler are actually talking about, visit one of the parts of England where multiculturalism hasn't worked, where there are real, obvious divisions along ethnic lines. You will find areas that are exclusively Muslim, and other areas that are exclusively white.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021120)

"The problem is that not everyone is as tolerant as you. Racism isn't an exclusively white thing, no matter what the BBC might say. To understand what MikeRT and benjfowler are actually talking about, visit one of the parts of England where multiculturalism hasn't worked, where there are real, obvious divisions along ethnic lines. You will find areas that are exclusively Muslim, and other areas that are exclusively white."

Gah. I have lived in areas like that. But problems aren't solved by both sides closing down.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020908)

"multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London."

Why exactly?

"Why would you want to have less variety?"

Why would you want more? I want my country to be my country , not some tower of babel style zoo.

The wonders of multiculturalism is a load of BS. Its a tired old mantra that gets wheeled out like a wheezing geriatric whenever some lefty (and more often that not a young one with fuck all life experience) wants to put a positive spin on separate cultures living apart in the same country.

Well I live in london mate , i was born here and IMO multicuturalism is NOT a benefit. The majority of english (whats left of us in this city) do NOT like it, do NOT want it and never asked for it. If I want to see foreign cultures and languages I can get on a plane. I don't need it in my street with people who can barely communicate with me.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021100)

"Why would you want more? I want my country to be my country , not some tower of babel style zoo. The wonders of multiculturalism is a load of BS. Its a tired old mantra that gets wheeled out like a wheezing geriatric whenever some lefty (and more often that not a young one with fuck all life experience) wants to put a positive spin on separate cultures living apart in the same country. Well I live in london mate , i was born here and IMO multicuturalism is NOT a benefit. The majority of english (whats left of us in this city) do NOT like it, do NOT want it and never asked for it. If I want to see foreign cultures and languages I can get on a plane. I don't need it in my street with people who can barely communicate with me." This seems a different point. Specifically, it's a shift from the alleged threat of anti-Western views to just disliking foreigners in general. I guess my point of disagreement is that I don't think having a diversity of views and backgrounds makes a country less my own.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020984)

I think multiculturalism is a mixed bag. I've seen it work spectacularly well where I've worked and studied, where (admittedly, middle-class) people of all colours and creeds work together and all have something to contribute. Then I've seen it work poorly, like on the streets of where I live here in London, where there's obviously a lot of hostility, distrust and social dysfunction, and where a lot of the people have nothing at all to contribute to society (or rather, "contribute" by stirring trouble and joining gangs). And yes, racism MOST CERTAINLY cuts both ways.

I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. But there are limits to tolerance, especially when I find myself on the receiving end of rudeness, disrespect, hostility and outright racism from people who clearly don't belong here.

I'm a bit of a liberal myself, but I do think that "multiculturalism" and "anti racism" certainly can be used as a kind-of badge of virtue and moral superiority by a certain chunk of the population, especially those with little life experience, and unhealthily high levels of idealism.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021026)

You also miss the point that multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London. Why would you want to have less variety?

The problem is that "variety" that includes new and exciting opportunities for assaults against my person and property aren't the kind of variety I'm looking for.

Having the rape rate of my neighborhood tripled in exchange for a few new dishes to excite the yuppie palate doesn't seem like an advantageous trade-off to me.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (2, Interesting)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020852)

Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!

Nice strawman. Do you realize that you just validated the grandparent's point? He talks about deporting immigrants who've expressed hostility towards their host culture, some to the point of committing crimes, even murder, and you come out and call him a nazi. That gives him the option of either giving up - which, in his view, results in his nation getting destroyed - or moving towards more radical methods.

Congratulations. You've prevented the matter from being discussed in a calm and reasonable manner, thus making sure that anyone concerned has little choice but to radicalize. Well done.

Could we cut them out by some kind of economic sanctions based on religious belief? Maybe just prevent them from owning businesses and stuff. Or deport them! Do you know if this plan has ever been tried before?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that hostile immigrants have been deported before. Are these hostile immigrants? Who knows, you cut the discussion short in favour of shouting "Nazi nazi nazi", so now I'll just have to assume the worst or risk my country. Again, congratulations. Pat yourself on the back.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (2, Informative)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020886)

"Nice strawman. Do you realize that you just validated the grandparent's point? He talks about deporting immigrants who've expressed hostility towards their host culture, some to the point of committing crimes, even murder, and you come out and call him a nazi. That gives him the option of either giving up - which, in his view, results in his nation getting destroyed - or moving towards more radical methods."

No, no he doesn't. He says:

"The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily."

How is that immigrants? It's limited by religion only. He also states that:

"There was even a survey done of the British Muslim population that said that about 40% of the young Muslims in the country want to live under Sharia."

So how is this not advocating deporting 40% of the population?

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020902)

"So how is this not advocating deporting 40% of the population?"

Islamic population, to be clear.

Is that the best you can do? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020854)

Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!

I bet you actually think that that was an intelligent response!

Your entire response below to benjfowler is indicative of how you missed my point which is that ignoring the radicals imperils those who are genuine moderates. They are the ones who get caught in the middle. The British government should infiltrate radical mosques and monitor them. Over time, if the agents feel that the congregation is too radical, identify the non-citizens and mark them for deportation.

That is the only way to draw a line in the sand without harming anyone. The moderates who just want to integrate will end up standing on one side, and the "moderates" who are closet sympathizers will end up on the other. Anyone who gets radicalized by that was not a true moderate to begin with under these circumstances.

Re:Is that the best you can do? (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021012)

OK...a more reasoned response for you.

"The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily."

This is an attempt to shift the blame to those you wish to expel for the actions against them. You state that you wish to 'cut out' any part of the Muslim population that might be 'remotely likely' to sympathise with extremist Islamic views. You have also stated that 40% of the UK Islamic population support Sharia law. Do the people you wish to cut out include that 40%?

I would conjecture that that this would in fact radicalise many more people as the UK state apparently undertook a war against versions of Islam it disliked. It would also be a direct breach of ECHR rights to free speech. I am curious what specific actions you would call for to cut out people from the population, especially given that incitement to terrorism is illegal already. Are you referring to deportation?

"The British government should infiltrate radical mosques and monitor them. Over time, if the agents feel that the congregation is too radical, identify the non-citizens and mark them for deportation."

We do this. MI5 has experience infiltrating the IRA, and certainly runs agents in the more extreme anti-Western mosques. However you appear to have stated that anyone that might be remotely likely to sympathise should be cut out. Does this then include citizens?

Please note when suggesting solutions that
a) you cannot make a mere opinion that the state should change legal system (even to Sharia law) punishable without a breach of the ECHR Art.9 and
b) this would arguably also breach ECHR Art.6(1) as the state action would itself be illegal, and so the trial would be unfair due to ultra vires actions.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020906)

Do you know if this plan has ever been tried before?

I vaguely recall hearing something about this before. Apparently it's a good way to get out of a recession too, and reduce unemployment.
But when I went to look for information about, none of my state approved history texts had anything to say. And all the websites google was pointing me to, appeared to be down. I wonder if the problem is with my ISP...

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020968)

Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!

I'd prefer that to having them make me wear a yellow crucifix. How's Sharia law, honor killings and terrorist bombings working out for Britain?

“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle”

-- Louis Veuillot

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

mikechant (729173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020724)

or start en masse rounding up and deporting the Muslims who go to those mosques, deport them

Errm... The majority of them will probably be British born with full non-revokable UK citizenship. Even if you 'revoked' their citizenship in some way (illegal under international law, but that's not a show stopper), they would then be stateless and have no other citizenship. So where do you think they would be deported to? Why do you think that the country you deported them to would accept them or even allow such deportation flights to land at all?

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020842)

To expand on this, it would require withdrawal from the EU due to the requirement of compliance to the European Convention on Human Rights to maintain membership. Were we not to do so, where deportation is impossible (as it would be for now-stateless individuals), automatic indefinite detention leads to breaches of Articles 5 and 14 ECHR, as long-term detention takes place even where deportation is impossible.

Even de facto stateless people who cannot obtain travel documentation to return to their country of origin cannot be deported, the stated aim of immigration detention. As a result, the policy of automatic indefinite detention is discriminatory as it leaves them far more likely to be detained for long periods. Indefinite detention functions in practice as an improvised extension of the criminal justice system, and is experienced by detainees as punitive. [1] The UK Border Agency (UKBA) cannot use detention as a long-term limbo for people considered to be undesirable, and detention without a fair trial breaches Art 6(1) of the ECHR.

Since the ex-UK nationals would still reside within the UK, they would be entitled to launch a civil action for damages combined with an injunction against deportation and a judicial review of the decision to remove their citizenship on the basis of both unfairness and ultra vires use of powers. They would then almost certainly be able to reside within the UK as newly enriched citizens. This is, for the avoidance of confusion, a good thing and the right result.

Although I do have UK qualifications in constitutional law, I am not your constitutional lawyer and this is not legal advice.

[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/62/62we19.htm [parliament.uk]

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

HanzoSpam (713251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021138)

To expand on this, it would require withdrawal from the EU due to the requirement of compliance to the European Convention on Human Rights to maintain membership.

And the problem with withdrawal from the EU would be, er, what?

I understand that in addition to the BNP, the UKIP is making friends fast across the pond there, too.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021184)

"And the problem with withdrawal from the EU would be, er, what?"

a) The fact that much of UK business depends on membership of it;
b) That we attract inward investment largely due to our EU membership;
c) That it provides much of our system of law;
d) Large amounts of UK nationals working abroad might have to come home;
e) UK nationals with houses in the EU might not easily be able to reside in them;
f) A possible move of EU companies from the London stock exchange to Frankfurt, leading to less City revenue. ...for a few random points.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (5, Insightful)

FourthAge (1377519) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020794)

It's a very difficult problem, and the response of the three major parties is "Denial". All three say "Immigration and Islamisation are not a problem. We will not even consider them as issues. P.S. You are a racist." I see you have already been called a Nazi for posting this.

Which is ironic, because your post is a warning about the Nazis in their BNP form. The National Socialists recognise and acknowledge the issues that the main parties do not. They are capitalising on the refusal of the main parties to talk about the issues.

I think it is obvious now that the multiculturalism policy of the UK government has been a complete disaster. It's created ghettos. Entire cities like Birmingham and Bradford are divided by ethnic groupings. It's encouraged fear and hatred between the groups, fueling terrorism. It's exactly what should never have happened.

Immigrants should have been welcomed into Britain provided that they were willing to merge into the existing culture and society, as many immigrants are. But instead, they were encouraged to be separate from the existing societies. Ghettos were created, and any concern about the ghettoisation process was dismissed by the UK Establishment as "racism", even though the concerns were well-founded. And it's not just the UK. The same problems exist in France for the same reason.

It is time to abandon cultural relativism, the idea that each culture - each approach to life - is just as valid as any other. It is simply nonsense. Some cultures are inherently better than others. Absolute comparisons are possible and useful.

The UK Establishment tells us that such comparisons are "racist" - but why? What is racist about comparing one society and another? Racism is discrimination based on ethnic grouping, not discrimination based on social structure or cultural values.

It is our duty to discriminate against the values and culture of dark age theocracies. We must not allow the civilisation we have built to be undermined by Sharia and the Middle Eastern dictatorships. The only way to do that is to stick up for what we have, and that means we must all be able to acknowledge that our ways are better.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020868)

"I see you have already been called a Nazi for posting this."

Thats the default response from the liberal left - call someone you disagree with a nazi and attempt to shut down discussion. All it does is ferment resentment and drive the issue underground but they're unfortunately too dumb to realise this.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020952)

Thats the default response from the liberal left

Hang on a moment. I'm a member of the liberal left, and what *I* see are constant reminders from right-wingers that nazi's, socialism, etc... are all products of the evil liberal left.

The truth is, the left/right political spectrum is a very poor analogy for the real world, and too many people on BOTH sides simply hurl accusations at the other, whether they are nazi comparisons or not.

You were called a Nazi, and yes, that was wrong. But you're equally as wrong to claim that this is the default position of the left. It is not. It is the default position of some people who cannot hold a rational discussion.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021074)

"the left/right political spectrum is a very poor analogy for the real world,"

Totally agree. But there is a certain group of people who hold certain social views who can be classed as liberal left.

"You were called a Nazi, and yes, that was wrong"

Actually it wasn't me.

"But you're equally as wrong to claim that this is the default position of the left. It is not."

Not old fashioned left wingers , thats why the new term liberal left was coined. In actual fact its really a combination of champagne socialists and right-on student types.

Re:One day they'll have to confront it head on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020848)

> There was even a survey done of the British Muslim population that said that about 40% of the young Muslims in the country want to live under Sharia.

And they can! Just not in that particular coutry. Conclusion of the survey: majority of Muslims donotwant Sharia.

New title (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020628)

This is a wonderful idea. Let's call the volunteer participants in this program Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter [wikipedia.org] .

Did you read the footnote? (3, Insightful)

Johnny Fusion (658094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020636)

Apparently, owning a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook is a jailable offense. I therefore should report amazon.co.uk who sells it. And since its not limited to british sites, I am pretty sure I read on wikipedia the mechanics on how thermonuclear weapons work. At least 1940s/1950s era weapons. In a world where information is criminal, only criminals will have information.

Re:Did you read the footnote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020802)

It isn't an offense, jailable or otherwise.

Does Linux Count? (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020642)

Obviously, Linux undermines the capitalist way of life. Any website mentioning Linux would qualify!

Re:Does Linux Count? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020688)

Oh great, now you're going to get Slashdot taken down.

Re:Does Linux Count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020766)

Slash Department of Transportation!

Re:Does Linux Count? (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020736)

Obviously, Linux undermines the capitalist way of life.

Not more than any attempt at turning other goods or services into cheap commodities or making companies work on the development of common platforms or giving away something to sell something else. We might say that Linux is the very essence of capitalism.

But I got your point about this idea of the UK government.

"glorifying terrorism" is so 1980's (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020646)

The 'freedom fighters' running up and down the English moor land playing with "blowpipes" to bring down Hinds.
They where soooo cool back the and the SAS staff loved them long time.
Once your in other peoples homes, riding around with explosives in local clothing and get caught, the locals tend to remember that.
They tend to glorify that for generations, no outside help needed.
Finding the (Force Research Unit?) pics on an Irish website is priceless (scroll down)
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80163 [indymedia.ie]

With the interweb we can crowd source and glorify the British government.

Sorted (5, Interesting)

robably (1044462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020670)

These laws make it illegal to have or to share information intended to be useful to terrorists

Check

ban glorifying terrorism

Check

or urging people to commit terrorist acts.

and check. [ntlworld.com]

Re:Sorted (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020858)

I like this website.

Do you have an RSS feed I could subscribe to?

tube (3, Funny)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020672)

So I reported the Subway (The Tube in the UK) schedules as being dramatically helpful to terrorists. Not only to target the subway itself but they might use it to get to their unrelated targets. Coming to think of it, let's shut down all Internet access cuz who knows what them terrorists will use it for...

A fine sentiment! (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020678)

I know there's a lot of very idealistic and naive libertarians on Slashdot who chafe against anything that would even hint suppressing free flow of information, no matter how objectionable or subversive.

But you all need to realise that when the rubber hits the road, idealism doesn't get you very far in the real world. Truth be told, the UK has a large problem with radical, violent, political Islam, and merely pussyfooting around, striving not to offend, and obsessing about theoretical and abstract notions of "rights" and "freedoms" -- and conveniently ignoring the obligations of EVERYONE to obey the law and behave like citizens -- will get us nowhere.

I heartily endorse any action taken to crack Islamist heads in the UK. Sometimes, tough choices have to be made, and idealism dispensed with.

Re:A fine sentiment! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020782)

I heartily endorse any action taken to crack Islamist heads in the UK.

      This post has been reported to the UK police for inciting racial hatred...

        No it hasn't, but just see how this can turn ugly quickly. However you must remember that Britain (do everything the Muslims say) is not the same as France (ban the burkas).

Re:A fine sentiment! (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020884)

But you all need to realise that when the rubber hits the road, idealism doesn't get you very far in the real world. Truth be told, the UK has a large problem with radical, violent, political Islam, and merely pussyfooting around, striving not to offend, and obsessing about theoretical and abstract notions of "rights" and "freedoms" -- and conveniently ignoring the obligations of EVERYONE to obey the law and behave like citizens -- will get us nowhere.

In other words, the ends justifies the means. Who cares if you trample on the occasional freedom or two, if it means you can look like you're trying to catch the boogaboo-of-the-month (terrorist, pedophile, communist). Because, you know, getting people to dob in websites is going to really put a dent in terrorist activities. All those terrorist organisations with military training camps in the Middle East won't have a clue what to do if we take down all the websites about how to make Molotov cocktails.

Re:A fine sentiment! (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021038)

I know there's a lot of very idealistic and naive libertarians on Slashdot who chafe against anything that would even hint suppressing free flow of information, no matter how objectionable or subversive.

I protest you using "libertarian" to describe someone believing in freedom of speech. "Libertarian" nowadays means completely unregulated capitalism. It has nothing to do with rights or freedoms, except property rights and the freedom from taxes.

But you all need to realise that when the rubber hits the road, idealism doesn't get you very far in the real world.

Why do I picture a 90's anti-hero [tvtropes.org] with an eyepatch and a cigar in his mouth when I read that ?-)

Truth be told, the UK has a large problem with radical, violent, political Islam, and merely pussyfooting around, striving not to offend, and obsessing about theoretical and abstract notions of "rights" and "freedoms" -- and conveniently ignoring the obligations of EVERYONE to obey the law and behave like citizens -- will get us nowhere.

Nice. It seems that in your worldview, rights and freedoms are optional but obligations are not. Sorry, kiddo, that's not how it works. Law has obligations to me - in the form of guaranteeing me certain rights and freedoms - and in exchange, I have obligation to obey it. Law exists to serve people, not the other way around.

I heartily endorse any action taken to crack Islamist heads in the UK.

If you believe that heads need to be cracked, perhaps you should vote for politicians willing to crack them, rather than ones who'll pussyfoot and try to make the problem invisible, which is the only thing banning websites will do.

Sometimes, tough choices have to be made, and idealism dispensed with.

And usually those who say that end up taking the path of least resistance out of laziness and cowardice, and then congratulate themselves on their "toughness", by which they mean the willingness to do harm to innocents rather than strength, endurance or courage.

Nothing's more pathetic than a spineless wimp pretending that slithering over and smothering the weak makes him a tough guy. Except, perhaps, his wannabe fanclub on the Internet.

Re:A fine sentiment! (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021208)

But censorship does not help curb terrorism. Censorship works great for steering popular opinion, but not for dealing with radical elements. Joe Citizen may be put off by a huge flashing sign displaying "This website contains information deemed possibly useful to terrorists, GTFO", but Achmed Terrorist will just find a way around it (or ask his nice friends in the middle east to send him some bomb building manuals or whatnot).

If you want to combat terrorism, you have to fight it at it's root: take out radical preachers and terrorist sympathizers (c'mon, it's not like they are hard to find) and promote cultural integration instead of harassing your citizens.

Website Captcha Fail (3, Interesting)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020694)

The worse part about this site is that they have recaptcha on it but verify the request in javascript.

Hence you can stick this request on your spam bot...

https://reporting.direct.gov.uk/bin/submitter.php?report_type=1&report_url=reporting.direct.gov.uk&report_desc=GeorgeOrwellWasRight [direct.gov.uk]

You really can't say "beware of slipery slope"... (2, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020716)

...after you're already slipping, can you?

This will a) provide nothing b) will destroy a lot c) won't cure paranoia

Dear God help us.

Circular logic apply? (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020718)

Usama Bin Laden have proved that terrorism is infact a very succesful tool. This law alone proves that it works just as intended. If the goal is to tighten the screws on your opponents population and make their life living 1984 i cant think of a better way. I find it very amusing that someone crate a law that proves that terrorism works just dandy and at the same time forbid anyone to speak about it.

I dont condone terrorism but it sure seems to work very well for some tasks. The US has a public perception of being evil and we westerners are now monitored, searched, scanned, Without free speech and controlled in any way possible.

The best we could have done was to gotten to the core of the problem, why do terrorists exist, what do they want? How do we go about getting rid of them peacefully, take away their reasons to commit terrorist acts and thus support from the general population?

As of now we just wander straight into the trap waving a big sign against the terrorists "Do it again! It works!" while we all loose essential human rights one after another.

In all seriousness... (4, Funny)

Grundlefleck (1110925) | more than 4 years ago | (#31020750)

FTFA:

Content deemed illegal by the U.K. includes videos of beheadings, messages that encourage racial or terrorist violence and chat forums revolving around hate crimes, according to information on Direct.co.uk.

(emphasis mine)

YouTube comments, anyone?

Perspective (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31020812)

OK, so it's still nigh on impossible to report phishing sites and malware-ridden adverts -- things which DO have a tangible negative impact on people -- to the authorities, but everyone is encouraged to take action against a mythical drummed-up threat which impacts almost nobody in this country?

Im so fucking sick of this shit. Is it too much effort to protect us from REAL threats?

Re:Perspective (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021042)

It will require that the people who ARE sick of it, run for office, and vote.

Not Crowdsourcing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31021066)

Calm down. This allows to report a website for investigation - it does not allow you some sort of final say on whether it's illegal or not - that decision, as before, is made by the Home Office. This is no different to calling the police if you see someone suspicious. The police make the final judgement on whether they're acting illegally or not. How valid that judgement is, of course, is another matter....

can't do blanket submissions (1)

andyjb (1625561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31021108)

I tried http://www.dailymail.co.uk/* [dailymail.co.uk] but it didn't work. seriously though - this seems open to abuse. Presumably they have to get a threshold number of complaints before they will look at something.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?