The government has today launched a review of its controversial "Prevent" counter-terrorism strategy, which includes measures to tackle extremist material online. The wide-ranging review could lead to greater censorship of the web. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said today: "I believe the Prevent programme isn't working as …
The slope has become a little more slippery
"She asked the Labour government "why the Internet Watch Foundation's list enables internet service providers to block child sexual abuse images if they are hosted abroad but does not enable them to block websites hosted abroad promoting violent extremism and terrorism"."
What about websites 'promoting' other potentially illegal activities? Would, say, christian websites that abhor homosexuality be subject to the same regulations as other forms of extremism?
christian websites that abhor
One would hope so, preferablly Tory and LibDem ones too.
considering Baroness Warsi thinks the coalition should "Do God" (which in my mind is a filthy euphemism) I'd be more worried about them using some kind of watch list to censor those pesky pro-GLBT sites that promote gay/transgender rights cos it might be damaging to der kiddies und similar types (Anne Widdecombe for example, mind of a child and about half as sane). The only way to do something like this without giving the human rights lobby something to shuot about is to make the list public. That way it can be subject to scrutiny but of course that would mean would exposing a large list of the net locations of lots of kiddie porn which really isn't the best of ideas... And so the cycle continues. Where do we start to allow censorship of some material that truly is evil (child porn) but make sure that feature creep doesn't turn this mechanism into one that censors any old form of dissent or un-popular opinion?
@ john lilburne
Are you advocating the blocking of all Tory / LibDem websites that abhor homosexuality (not aware of any, to tell the truth) or just all Tory / LibDem websites? What about websites that take the Muslim view (and that of many African Churches) that homosexuality is to be condemned?
Strange, confused post
Halcyon Days of the Internet
Will there be nostalgia for those early lawless days of the internet when the most popular downloads were the DIY amateur bombmakers handbook, hardcore animal pornography videos, pirated commercial software warez and homebrew recipies to cooking hardcore hallucinogenic compounds in a council flat kitchen...?
they aren't available any more?
So now our masters are also going to decide what we can be allowed to read.
How long before political sites end up on the banned reading list.
This is moving into Fahrenheit 451 territory, banning what we can read. After all, we may read subversion against our rich and powerful masters.
Plus yet another day and yet another shocking Police State move. Its never ending. :(
I am so sick of what they are doing, this Police State isn't the country I grew up in. :(
Seems quite a sensible review, like a breath of fresh air after the last government.
censoring the internet
this is all bull shit and censorship so they can remove any content they like, soon there will be no wiki leaks exposing USA, Israel & UK Government war crimes, torture, murder, genocide ect.
their plan is to turn the entire internet into corporate controlled propaganda using the line "to protect your/the children's safety" as the catalyst.
She asked the Labour government why?
What is it with these thicko pols? The difference is a peado is a peado , and a violent extremist is:
a. a terrorist
b. a brave freedom fighter
(depending on your point of view).
Lets face it, the reason for this type of attemped control is an end in itself, I'd also like to know how many non radicals have been converted by a glorified snuff film on the internet. Please don't try the "it wasn't my fault, it was the video that did it" excuse like the retard that stabbed the pol in the article).
Both a terrorist, and a brave freedom fighter can really spoil your day if you happen to be on the receiving end of their semtex, AK47, stolen aircraft etc. on the ground. Can I suggest that much of the reason for this monitoring is an attempt to prevent this happening?
"The difference is a peado is a peado"
Only if you use the biological definition, i.e. attracted to pre-pubescent children . Otherwise it comes down to the legal definition of the age of consent, which can vary from country to country.
And that is when it becomes murkey. Consider the UK's current position where 16-17 year olds can have sex, but should they dare take a photo of each other, they are now guilty of the possession of child porn. Or a 15 year old being sexually attracted to another 15 year old, is that naturally wrong, and thus a serious crime?
Oh, and if you have any of the old Sun newspapers lying around (God knows why...) that featured Samantha Fox when she first appeared on page 3, well, you are also peado in the law's eyes!
So even on the subject of child porn that most agree is a BAD THING, the issue of censorship and definitions is not quite so clear. What is acceptable in one country (e.g. nude bathing) may be serious crime in another (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Should we support such censorship?
Overall, I support the Internet Watch Foundation's aims, but I do worry about it being subverted for political or religious ends. Who guards the guards?
there is a very defenate black/white legal defination if what is undergae 17 years 11 mounth 29 days NO 18 years 1 day YES but there is no nsuch thing when it comes to these religious hatrate and promating violance/extrimisum laws so it is not realy right they should be blocking it on a whim
perhaps they, the politicos, are starting to get the jitters at just how angry the people are getting with them?
Barking at wrong tree...
The symptoms are fine... but it seems the whole strategy is off-kilter.
Shouldn't they tackle the root cause of extremism, aptly pointed out by the center for security policy (the same folks who decided appeasing communists was a bad idea)
Was I the only one...
... who read this as "PREVERT"?
And that is why...
... you don't do nation-(or even just all-isp-)wide censorship. Not even "for the childruuun". A central government is wonderful for organising things like, oh, a military and sending them to war in response to some insurgents but also to stir that pot some more, but not so much at attempting to control thoughts. Not at least and also have a "free" country for any recognizable definition of "free". So take censorship as a policy instrument and shove it, or be a despicable liar. Can't do it without? You've already lost. Carry on government.
And now if you'll excuse me. I'm off to make some mellow yellow, while still allowed.
Confused thinking from a bunch of confusists.
"The wide-ranging review could lead to greater censorship of the web."
This despite the following in the Preventing Violent Extremism report from March this year:
"It was clear from our witnesses that many believe Government has sought to engineer a 'moderate' form of Islam, promoting and funding only those groups which conform to this model. In our view, a persistent pre-occupation with the theological basis of radicalisation is misplaced because the evidence suggests that foreign policy, deprivation and alienation are also important factors. Preventative work should address these challenges."
Preventative work such as not shooting civilians and then trying to cover it up;
Not invading countries under some guise-of-righteousness or other;
Not giving guns away to people you think are going to help you, but who are (in actual fact) merely going to help themselves.
"Recent high-profile crimes have again focused attention on how Islamic extremists use the internet to promote their violent ideology."
Such as promoting the Defence Systems and Equipment International arms fair, or BAE Systems?
> The online preaching of the US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was cited by Roshonara Choudhry – the 21-year-old woman convicted last week of attempting to murder her MP, Stephen Timms – as a radicalising influence.
Yeah, and The Catcher In The Rye (which is, IMO, a fucking terrible read) has been associated with a number of high-profile murders (besides Chapman's shooting of famous heroin-addict John Lennon). I can buy this book on Amazon. When are the US & UK governments going to apply pressure to have it removed from the sales list?
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market