back to article UK PM Cameron says Internet must not 'be an ungoverned space'

UK prime minister David Cameron has called for “extremist material” to be taken offline by governments, with help from network operators. Speaking in Australia's Parliament on a trip that will also see him attend the G20 leaders' summit, Cameron spoke of Australia and Britain's long shared history, common belief in freedom and …

  1. Ketlan

    Cameron talking crap again

    For god's sake, Cameron, keep away from the internet. It's already clogged up with advertising - we don't want you and all the other control freaks regulating the shit out of it too.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Cameron talking crap again

      Take your stinking paws off my internet you damn dirty politician!

      1. Ted Treen
        Big Brother

        Re: Cameron talking crap again

        Indeed...

        "...an effort to “root out” extremism from institutions..."

        Might I suggest starting with The Palace of Westminster?

    2. Tapeador

      Re: Cameron talking crap again

      Hang on, why ought internet videos imploring you to go and cut your neighbours' heads off not be regulated?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Cameron talking crap again

        Either because they are protected under the principle of freedom of expression (in the case of allegoric or artistic endeavours) or because they are already prosecutable under existing laws (such as incitement to commit a crime, hatred, etc.)

        Mr. Cameron was preaching to the converted in Australia, but if this is not totalitarianism I don't know what it is.

        1. Tapeador
          Stop

          Re: Cameron talking crap again

          Hang on, you're now agreeing with me. I asked why ought material calling for violence not be regulated, and you said (and I paraphrase) 'because they are regulated [prosecutable under existing laws]', and presumably you agree they should be. So your argument has the form "they shouldn't be regulated, because they are regulated, and they are regulated because they should be regulated". :-/

          And if you're arguing we shouldn't actually regulate material itself, but just prosecute people who put it up instead, why should we (i.e. the government which acts on our behalf) only prosecute people for putting up videos calling for murder, and not take the videos down too? Would not the material then be viewable forever? Of course it would.

          So you then say (I quote) "because they are protected under the principle of freedom of expression". Are videos calling for murder protected under the principle of freedom of expression? No they aren't. There is no such principle which protects incitements to criminal violence. Not in any country. And since the principle in question, is a "should" principle, i.e. free expression isn't a fact but is an expression of our nuanced moral views on what should obtain, you haven't actually said why we should be free to post pro-murder videos, except that you've said 'FREE EXPRESSION, YEAAAAAHHH!!'. Which doesn't really explain for me why we should be free to incite murder.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Cameron talking crap again

            > Hang on, you're now agreeing with me. I asked why ought material calling for violence not be regulated

            I presume this relates to my previous comment.

            In a nutshell, the call for (non-State sanctioned) violence is itself already illegal in liberal democracies, so attempting to make the vehicle for said calls also illegal is redundant and subject to misuse.

            And I know the definition of totalitarianism (no capital, although it's a matter of style) but thank you for posting it anyway. Now, perhaps you could tell me how you think UK policy and discourse is not leading towards it.

            1. Tapeador

              @AC Re: Cameron talking crap again

              A capital after a full stop is not a matter of style, it's a matter of grammar.

              You originally said this "is" totalitarianism, not that it is "leading to [it]". I won't deal with your second claim about what this is leading to. Your claim that this "is" it, seems to me not to match the common dictionary understanding of totalitarianism.

              As for "In a nutshell, the call for (non-State sanctioned) violence is itself already illegal in liberal democracies, so attempting to make the vehicle for said calls also illegal is redundant and subject to misuse." I think you completely fail to grasp the purpose of the criminalisation of "non-State sanctioned" (sic) violence and its promotion. The purpose is to minimise such violence. Measures which are vital to achieving this purpose are anything but redundant: they are the purpose for which the original criminalisation of violence-promotion was enacted.

              If, then, you criminalise the original making of a statement calling for violence, but not, for example, the infinite rebroadcast of that statement on social media (which is the position you advocate), you a) fail to prevent the initial call (because these people are often beyond our borders, and criminalisation of online activity is a very weak deterrent, cf copyright theft), and b) you end up with the message they posted, endlessly rebroadcast. Ergo, you end up with their pro-violence propaganda being essentially permitted - in law and in fact.

              Knowingly hosting pro-violence propaganada seems to me entirely culpable. It is this which regulation properly prohibits. I don't see how you can claim that it is not culpable and worthy of criminalisation.

              Oh and I think your drawing moral equivalence between "state-sanctioned" and most unlawful violence is unsupportible. We cannot have individuals or militia deciding and enforcing disagreements privately through force. A sovereign authority is required, one accountable to the people and its representatives.

        2. Tapeador
          FAIL

          Re: Cameron talking crap again

          "if this is not totalitarianism I don't know what it is."

          OK 1) it's not totalitarianism. 2) Totalitarianism, according to the OED, is "a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state".

          So now you know. M'kay?

          1. Greg 16

            Re: Cameron talking crap again

            Tapeador, sorry dude but you need to understand the world view of the average Register commentard. Many of them live in a fluffy world of highly educated IT professionals and academics. They have little exposure to the kind of people who are susceptible to extremist material and little understanding of of the thought processes involved. Even if they do have exposure to these people, they still see everything through their own educated world view and therefore don't understand the risks. I'm not talking about someone watching a 2 minute voyeuristic beheading video on Liveleak, I'm talking about the extremist videos who feed off the mindset where women are worthless, democracy is weakness and "the west" (ie white and non Muslim) is the enemy.

            I haven't a problem if another countries population decides they want to live in a society like that, that's their own shit to sort out, but unfortunately many of these people are very much embedded in OUR society. If these people are allowed a free rein, then either ourselves or our children are in for a big lesson on appeasement.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Cameron talking crap again

              "Tapeador, sorry dude but you need to understand the world view of the average Register commentard. Many of them live in a fluffy world of highly educated IT professionals and academics. They have little exposure to the kind of people who are susceptible to extremist material and little understanding of of the thought processes involved."

              I wasn't aware that someone had done a sociological study of ElReg's forum contributors. Could you please post a link to it?

              1. Chris Parsons

                Re: Cameron talking crap again

                I take your point, but he does have a point, too. The average El Reg reader is most likely not the average person, almost definitely better educated and with a more inquiring attitude to what is going on in the world.

                *Most* comments on El Reg show a better grasp of rhetoric than in, say, the Daily Mail. And no, I don't have a link to a survey showing this either, but suggest, if you don't believe it, you make the comparison for yourself!

    3. Mark 65 Silver badge

      Re: Cameron talking crap again

      Extremist will merely be that with which they do not agree. Watch this space.

  2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    Back in the days of SCO vs Linux ...

    Penguinistas wanted SCO's website up and running so they could put links in debunking pages to prove SCO really were making ridiculous claims.

    If David Cameron wants to create debunking pages at his own expense, then he is welcome to get on with it at his own expense. If, on the other hand, he wants people to hunt down certain websites and believe the contents, then banning is an excellent way to start.

  3. Eguro

    It's nice and comforting to know, that Cameron will protect us from extremist material!

    Public discourse, education, and tackling issues head on is always a waste of time. It's reassuring to know that we can simply ban extremist material, and then the people who previously held these views will realise the error of their ways, and embrace good ol' fashioned British values!

    God bless David Cameron!

    1. Ledswinger Silver badge

      "God bless David Cameron!"

      Indeed. I was particularly impressed to see that Spineless Dave has analysed the situation and found that the grinding poverty and lack of food or of work are not causes of extremism, and neither is "foreign policy" (meaning nigh on fifteen years of missile strikes, failed interference and persistent war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and now Syria).

      No, the causes of extremism are a few crappy videos and bile-spewing web sites, and if government can control those the problem will be gone.

      Actually, I've a better idea. Our government (for which purposes I regard the US and UK as a single state) stops interfering in other people's affairs, stop pouring weapons into conflict zones, stop making bellicose and inflammatory statements when they don't know what they're talking about, and concentrate on the pressing domestic problems that they've spent decades ignoring. And before things spiral completely out of control, perhaps the 'bama & Dave show could stop meddling in Ukraine and antagonising Russia. Back in the 1980s your equally small minded predecessors sought to make life difficult for Russia you created the Taliban, and I think there will be considerable agreement that policy didn't work out very well in the end.

      1. Anonymous Blowhard

        "Back in the 1980s your equally small minded predecessors sought to make life difficult for Russia you created the Taliban, and I think there will be considerable agreement that policy didn't work out very well in the end."

        It worked out very well for the UK/US guns'n'ammo biz; first they got taxpayers' money to arm the Taliban, then they got taxpayers' money to fight the Taliban, and next they'll get taxpayers' money to fuck up the internet so we can't hear that the Taliban are still around.

        1. Ledswinger Silver badge

          "first they got taxpayers' money to arm the Taliban"

          Point of order: Although the West funded weapons for the Taliban, these were invariably procured local to the conflict, or through crooked international arms dealers. Very few of the weapons supplied were Western designed or made, partly because they didn't want the Russians showing captured SA80's or M16's to the press, partly because Western weapons were not as robust and effective as the AK47 and similar products.

      2. John Sanders
        Holmes

        It works like this:

        We (The west, we're all in this together) have been doing this for decades:

        10 Support (weapons and money) a given designated "Friendly" faction for reasons that matters to us at a given time and that culturally are alien to the supported group.

        20 Supported group crushes opposition using our weapons and our money in their country of origin.

        30 Supported group now feels strong and uses our own weapons and money against us.

        40 Realise supported "Friendly" group wasn't our friend at all, and they are now hostile radicals.

        50 Find new "Friendly" group to oppose the old now hostile group, which are not radicals.

        60 Goto 10

        With this program it is guaranteed that everybody will be angry at each other and us (Westeners)

        Cameron, like most useless western politicians is only worried with making the media evidence disappear simply to keep pretending that there is no problem. This is like a woman wearing clothes to conceal a pregnancy. Eventually she'll have to face the fact she's going to have a baby.

    2. Captain DaFt

      "God bless David Cameron!"

      In the polite society of the Southern United States, one will never say a bad word about anyone behind their back in mixed company.

      Instead, a certain phrase is used to indicate that the person being spoken of is a hopeless jackass.

      So, sipping a mint Julep, I will only state, "David Cameron? Well God bless his little heart!"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "So, sipping a mint Julep, I will only state, "David Cameron? Well God bless his little heart!""

        I for one upvote that rather splendid piece of condescending southern snark. And, yes, Mr. Cameron has a little heart. Amongst other things.

  4. moiety

    And who decides what is extremist? That sounds like an idea that will go badly wrong.

    1. Suricou Raven

      I volunteer!

      I can do that. I promise to use my powers only for evil and entertainment.

      1. wowfood

        Re: I volunteer!

        UKIP is filled with extremists, the first act should be to remove all material relating to UKIP.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I volunteer!

          Could you please provide citation for the number of wars UKIP have taken us into vs Labour/Con/Lib

          Thanks

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      @ moiety

      "And who decides what is extremist? That sounds like an idea that will go badly wrong."

      It could go bad under the tories. It will go to the extreme under labour. And I cant think of any party I would trust this level of decision making to.

      1. BongoJoe

        Re: @ moiety

        "And who decides what is extremist? That sounds like an idea that will go badly wrong."

        We've got over 200 hundred countries using the internet in one way or another. Each will have their own view of extremist activity.

        When one filters the internet through 200 sets of filters not even a picture of a cat will get through.

        The day will come when there will be lots of different internets one for each of the two hundred filters. I dread to think what we would get if we left this to Cameron's chums; one of which is Ms Brookes.

        Time to emigrate again...

    3. wolfetone Silver badge

      Well, depends who's in power at the time doesn't it?

      Don't forget, this utter King Knut promised that English MP's wouldn't vote on Scottish matters, but then say Scottish MP's can't vote on English matters only. Which would mean the Tory's would win near enough every vote they put forward.

      As George Galloway would say, they're just three cheeks of the same arse. Except for UKIP, they're effectively the product of said arse.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Don't forget, this utter King Knut promised that English MP's wouldn't vote on Scottish matters, but then say Scottish MP's can't vote on English matters only. Which would mean the Tory's would win near enough every vote they put forward.

        Presumably, only if the majority of English MPs are Conservative. Oh they are? So the majority of English people want Conservative politicians to represent their views, and on English matters you think that they should be overridden by Scot MPs?

        Presumably you only started thinking this because there are more English Conservative MPs than English Labour MPs and you prefer Labour policies. There is something about the left that makes them think "Democracy is fine, as long as we're in charge".

        1. Lamont Cranston

          the left think "Democracy is fine, as long as we're in charge".

          The trouble with democracy, is that it lets politicians get into positions of power.

        2. Les Matthew

          "the majority of English people"

          If you actually look at the figures I think you'll find that a majority of the electorate has never voted for any of the governments that we get.

      2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

        SCOTLAND

        I think the actual problem is that Scottish matters do not get put to the House of Commons. UK matters do and Scottish MPs (even if over representing their electorate) properly get a vote. When English matters are put to the House of Commons Scottish MPs also get to vote on English laws when they have no mandate.

        To paraphrase Lord Palmerston: Only the English understand the West Lothian Question.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Take down all the references to the extremist viewpoint that the internet has to be governed.

    5. John Sanders
      Holmes

      Obviously

      This is a slippery slope...

      It will be done in the name of removing the beheadings, but it will come in handy later for anything else they want to justify.

      The funny thing is that this is the internet we're talking about, with all their political and corporate might the pirate bay is still up and running.

      Why wouldn't the radicalised "asians" find places to post and share their non-"asian"** attainments.

      All this is is an exercise in cosmetic measures, "look ma, no videos online, no problem!".

      (**Cameron said it not me)

  5. DocJames
    FAIL

    Usual political failure

    Cameron as ever failing to notice that if he has a reasonable point to make this would torpedo most terror *if* it was believable in context. Reasonable points don't seem reasonable when you're in poverty (relative or absolute) with foreign policy apparently designed to target you and yours.

    "Vulture South has accreditation to the event, meaning we can get our hands on any communiqués the leaders emit." --> next reg headline: Southern subeditors suffer sulphurous suffocation?

  6. P. Lee Silver badge

    Wrong again!

    We like our internet ungoverned.

    The more I see of .gov the less I want to see it expand.

    1. Jedit

      "The more I see of .gov the less I want to see it expand."

      The more I see of .gov.uk under Cameron, the more I think it should be classified as extremist material.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    A bright future

    I look forward to the day when i can sign in to theregister.gov.uk, having biometrically proven my ID, and have a safe commenting experience, knowing that I won't be forced to see nasty words typed by people who don't think like I do. Bring it on.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Coat

      @ JustaKOS -- Re: A bright future

      Fuck that!

  8. Tom 64

    What's that sound?

    Ahh yes it must be the sound of the 'Nanny State Pork Barrel Bus' come to <strikethrough>exploit us all</strikethrough> help us all out. Joy of joys.

  9. localzuk

    Government regulation usually ends up with overreach

    Whilst blocking extremist material (whatever that is) might make for good headlines for people who don't think things through, in reality such a policy has been shown repeatedly to lead to massive overreach by governments. Who decides what is "extremist"? Will the definition only include people who want to bomb somewhere? Or will it be a fuzzy definition that can be used as a blunt tool to control any dissent?

    How would such a system be implemented also? Transparently, or entirely in secret? I figure it should be transparent - that way people don't think you're hiding things away.

    And then, behind all that, why is the focus on end results, rather than prevention? Surely we should be putting our effort into preventing radicalisation and the like?

    1. dan1980

      Re: Government regulation usually ends up with overreach

      @localzuk

      What's this "usually" business?

      1. localzuk

        Re: Government regulation usually ends up with overreach

        Any and all "censorship" related law. Laws to control child pornography online ended up being extended to include copyright infringement, which then get extended to include extreme material etc...

        Unless you mean it should be "always"...

        1. dan1980
          Happy

          Re: Government regulation usually ends up with overreach

          That is precisely what I mean.

    2. dan1980

      Re: Government regulation usually ends up with overreach

      @localzuk

      "Surely we should be putting our effort into preventing radicalisation and the like?"

      It's amusing (not really) how our politicians can do this where it isn't needed but utterly fail (avoid) to do so where it is.

      In Australia, our politicians, with the headlines of tabloid newspapers fresh on their desks, declared that 'alcohol-fueled violence' was a concern. So lets increase the tax on alcohol, limit the availability and bring forward closing times. In short, let's punish and inconvenience everyone for the sake of addressing the actions of a few.

      But that's okay, because you have to address the 'drinking culture', which sees a tacit acceptance of alcohol.

      Move to religion, however, and suddenly it's reversed. We've got to just crack down on the 'extremists' and under no circumstances admit that there might be any problem with religion in general and the culture of blind faith and respect for blind faith.

      Of course there very much is a "culture of drinking" in Australia but it's a damned sight less dangerous than the culture of blind religious faith.

    3. Julz

      Re: Government regulation usually ends up with overreach

      "Will the definition only include people who want to bomb somewhere? "

      Isn't that overwhelmingly governments?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Government regulation usually ends up with overreach

      Will the blocking of extremist material mean the websites of BAE, Boeing and Lockhead Martin disappearing from google? Or is that stuff ok cause their WMDs only kill bad people?

  10. Hans 1 Silver badge
    WTF?

    “extremist material” "hatred"

    I guess, Dave, that you might consider starting with your own backyard ... I mean, UKIP website is hosted in the UK and still up and operational at the time of this writing.

    Seriously, though ... you, like a great number of other government officials, are already taking down bits and bobs here and there, so I guess that if you can take down a site when RIAA kindly asks, you already can take down Islamist, Zionist, Jehova witness', Mormon, Scientology etc websites ... so what is your point ?

    1. dan1980

      Re: “extremist material” "hatred"

      @Hans 1

      ". . . already taking down bits and bobs . . ."

      Bits and boobs, I think you mean.

      And I wasn't aware the RIAA/MPIAA asked. It was my understanding that they simply make a periodic donation and then e-mailed un-annotated lists to parliament each week.

      "Asking" seems rather inefficient.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

        Re: “extremist material” "hatred"

        I hope they do ban the UKIP website, it might actually wake the sleeping masses. I find it hard to credit how dense some people can be sometimes.

        You can warn people of impending doom 'til your face turns purple and they will blithely ignore it, and once said doom appears upon them they wail 'why weren't we warned?'

        Would it be extremist of me to promote a form of democracy where you have to exhibit an understanding of the issues before you are allowed to vote? (or at least even an awareness of the issues)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: “extremist material” "hatred"

          "I hope they do ban the UKIP website, it might actually wake the sleeping masses. I find it hard to credit how dense some people can be sometimes."

          Such as voting for the same colour every time for 60 years, because your dad and granddad always did... sort of like North Korea you mean?

          Or perhaps a vote that splits the main parties and maybe something different will happen. Good or bad it's change and the fewer lazy safe seated politicians with their heads in the trough the better.

        2. db49

          Re: “extremist material” "hatred"

          Every time any one matching your criteria offers not to vote, we have to listen to amazing lectures about how that means we now have to give up all the rights we enjoy in the country in which we live. It seems no one other than those of us who so choose (and yourself apparently) can see that its actually a very responsible choice.

  11. dan1980

    Look, Cameron: rack-off you silver-spoon-gumming, coat-tail-wearing, elitist public schoolboy.

    We take orders from the Queen of Australia. Who the hell are you to spurt your rubbish over here*?

    And anyway - do you really think our politicians need any encouragement?

    * - I am pretty sure the power doesn't extend down your line.

    1. Tim Jenkins

      "We take orders from the Queen of Australia"

      So what are Dame Edna's views on the Qur'anic justification for jihad and the establishment of the Worldwide Caliphate?

      1. dan1980

        Re: "We take orders from the Queen of Australia"

        I imagine it would be something both humorous and cutting at the same time but I dare not put words in her mouth.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does "the removal of extremist material” include

    allegations of criminal activity by politicians?

  13. IT Hack

    Annoyed by Politicians

    So the Freshly Wanked Cock does it again...showing quite clearly that when he says public discourse he means the unquestioned output from his "Cobra" meetings with the rest of the dickswinging autocrats who had their last proper technology interaction whacking off to pron on a dodgy version of Win95me.

    We obviously are not allowed to be part of any discourse beyond the usual pedo under the bed scare.

  14. Fihart

    An ungoverned space ?

    Wot, like the unregulated market in rented housing that is toppling into unaffordable anarchy ?

    1. dan1980

      Re: An ungoverned space ?

      @Fihart

      Apples and oranges mate. The free market allows - nay promotes - everyone to achieve maximum happiness. The free exchange of ideas, on the other hand, only serves to promote heinous and unwelcome anarchy.

      Irony.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Extremist views,

    Mr Prime Minister!

  16. ukgnome Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Free and Open

    As long as it's our brand of free and open.

    And no, I don't mean Russell "lets revolt, parklife" Brand

    1. BongoJoe

      Re: Free and Open

      "And no, I don't mean Russell "lets revolt, parklife" Brand"

      Someone recebtly told me that he's a comedian. Honest.

  17. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Don't waste your breath, David

    "Cameron said [PDF] poverty and foreign policy are not the source of terror. “The root cause of the challenge we face is the extremist narrative,” he said,"

    Lemme see, David - so you think that if offered, you would find a proposition to go to some godforesaken desert and live in shit without running water and electricity and proper food, all for the chance of getting your arse shot off from under you and possibly, just possibly, get a number of women to play with *after* you die - irresistively attractive? You would instantly drop your nice lifestyle - houses, cars, chauffers, golf, whatever, just for a chance of strapping on your suicide belt (and a pack of condoms?) and fulfill your destiny?

    Would you say - "I suffered all my life going through private education, fine dining, shagging, occasional pot smoking, trying to get that lousy PM job and you never told me that I could just happily die in shit, trying to cut off some schmuck infidel's head while under American drone fire instead??? WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME BEFORE???"

    No, I thought so, you wouldn't...

    C'mon, David, YOU know very well that "terrorist narrative" will not work without there being poverty and discontent in the first place. YOU only want to lay your hands on our Internets, that's all.

    Oh, and we know it too, so don't waste your time feeding us your counter-terrorist narrative...

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Don't waste your breath, David

      you would find a proposition to go to some godforesaken desert and live in shit without running water and electricity and proper food, all for the chance of getting your arse shot off from under you and possibly, just possibly, get a number of women to play with *after* you die - irresistively attractive?

      I'm sure I've seen that on TV, something about celebrities?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Law of (probably) intended consequences

    “A new and pressing challenge is getting extremist material taken down from the internet."

    2014. Extremist material = Islamist propaganda

    2020. Extremist material = Anything the current collection of fuckwits in charge don't like.

    Slippery slope etc, etc.

    1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects 1

      IIRC

      Wasn't one of our famous RAF war poets a foreigner shot down whilst illegally fighting for freedom in WW2?

      And that was before the RN gave them Top Gun. (Probably why he was KIA.)

      Ah yes, the gateway to education is not suitably controlled enough, if we can still find out things.

  19. David Pollard

    ... being more proactive in taking down this harmful material

    Perhaps he should set his own house in order first, by having a word with whoever looks after UK government internet security. A trivial Google search with [site:gov.uk paypal viagra}, for example, brings up a slew of hacked sites advertising all manner of stuff. There seem to be quite a few hacks of NHS sites too.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All the same

    Whether you vote Tory, Labour, LibDem, Green or UKIP, they all propose to do much the same thing in the same way that most western governments do. There really is very little to choose between them - fringe differences.

    They are all self serving. The State is good, you will obey, and you will hand over a big chunk of everything you earn or we'll put you in prison. We'll take as much of your money as we can without causing a revolution, and we'll spend it on making things more and more complicated to keep more and more people dependant upon the State.

    1. Kaltern Silver badge

      Re: All the same

      There will never be a revolution, because those who rise up will be called terrorists. And then shot.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All the same

        We are told that without government we would have anarchy, where those with the guns make the rules. Instead we have a government, who just so happens to have all the guns and makes all the rules.

        We're told how a lack of government would lead to anarchy - and it would. But anarchy is a world without rulers, not a world without rules.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lost me...

    "Cameron spoke of Australia and Britain's long shared history, common belief in freedom and openness..."

    Fine, I'm just off to watch two consenting adults partake in a sex session where one is dressed as a SS Officer while the other is whipped and has their genitals nailed to a table?

    What do you mean I can't? They are both consenting grown ups!

  22. corestore

    My diagnosis...

    An acute, hopefully terminal case of Canute Syndrome.

    There IS no little British internet for British people, DC. Attempting to exert some degree of 'government' on the internet with national laws is utter foolishness.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: My diagnosis...

      Don't you get it? This is the start of the great firewall of Earth rather than China, gradually Governments and Corporations are waking up to the fact there is a method of expression out there that is unregulated and *gasp* free, in dribs and drabs they are starting to snoop and block bits of it off from casual viewing, first they go for unregulated porn sites and "extremist porn" then they go for religious sites until we end up with a situation where we're going to be tracked and stamped and restricted,

      Not going to happen quickly, and there will be workarounds (thank fuck) but for the non-techy guy on the street they'll be fed a diet of pure shit from on high and told anyone who doesn't subscribe is a lunatic.

      And fuck... I sound like a paranoid conspira-loon, I'm more like my dad than I expected to be 20 years ago.

      1. corestore

        Re: My diagnosis...

        Yeah nah... actually it's going in the reverse direction... the internet will default free speech to the American settings - which are very strongly protected indeed by the 1st amendment.

        My point was the futility of trying to swim against that tide.

      2. John Sanders
        Unhappy

        Re: My diagnosis...

        """Not going to happen quickly, and there will be workarounds (thank fuck) but for the non-techy guy on the street they'll be fed a diet of pure shit from on high and told anyone who doesn't subscribe is a lunatic."""

        90% of the BBC 's content anyone? :-(

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: My diagnosis...

      Yes, he's a Cnut.

    3. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects 1

      Re: Mz Diaganosis...

      You mean we are not supposed to be living in a dystopia where the stupid, wax skinned, fat arsed ponces say silly things?

  23. Christoph Silver badge

    An excellent idea

    "UK prime minister David Cameron has called for “extremist material” to be taken offline by governments"

    Absolutely! Get the Daily Mail offline right now!

  24. Elmer Phud Silver badge

    So that's

    BNP,

    EDL,

    Ingurlund Furzt,

    Westboro Baptist Church

    plenty to pick Dave-- where will you start?

  25. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    When is a spade not a spade? Whenever it is shovel not knowing when to stop digging.

    Will someone please tell that numptie Cameron and his ilk that the internet is not an ungoverned space and place for pathetic non-leadership.

    What an embarrassment it is for it to be thought so and for old methods and bit players to be thought relevant to its future progress and expanding well-being.

    Is not the likes of the Palace and GCHQ and whatever else would be passing itself off as an intelligence source worthy of succour and listening to, not duty and honour bound to provide political muppets a competent and believable script that can be accepted as gospel and followed without punters realising that they have nothing valuable to offer and be a global laughing stock.

    FFS ...... get your APT ACT together, Blighty, and quit messing around with fools who be useless tools.

  26. W T Riker

    Media Influence

    Look at the X-factor, that has managed to make hundreds of thousands of people believe that that can sing and actually make money out of their (lack of) talent. Maybe, David is right after all. The Government through it's industry puppets should decide what we are allowed/not allowed to see, like they do in Syria, North Korea, Iran. I already get lovely messages from my ISP that say "...this search content has be removed to protect....someone or something". Trouble is, I have no idea what was removed and why I shouldn't see it as they provide no URL or sample content.

    Sorry about the rant, but censorship to protect the innocent, vulnerable and easily influenced often ends with censorship that subverts: free speech, constructive criticism and disillusion.

  27. Phil_Evans

    ISPs?

    where do people sit on the obligations of ISPs on this? Always very quiet when it comes to finger pointing, should it not be they who should be given a bit more stick in the *propogation* of terrorist material?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

      Re: ISPs?

      What has it got to do with the ISP's? They haven't created the material, and they haven't 'propogated' it either, they have merely provided a set of wet strings along which we can communicate with one another.

      The lines are probably a bit more blurred when it comes to search engines though.

    2. BongoJoe

      Re: ISPs?

      Why the ISPs? They're not hosting the stuff.

      It's like asking newsagents to spot dodgy newspapers when it should be the publishers, if anyone at all. If I get something I don't like in the post it's not the postman's job or responsiblity it's the sender/host.

      And with web pages I find that, as a rule, if I go to a web page then I usually wish to go there in the first place. So I am hardly likely to report it, am I?

      If these web pages are freely available to be stumbled upon via the likes of Google (or even Bing! on a good day) then there is more than an even's chance that GCHQ has been there already. So there would be no need for a Jihad Button.

      If the web page is on the dark net and I am wanting to go there then the Cameron Jihad Ahoy button won't be pressed at all.

      None of what he says makes any sense whatsoever. Then again, he is a politician.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the film wasn't paranoia

  29. scrubber

    Extremist material

    such as: Cameron shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Yep, I'm an extremist.

  30. Swarthy Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Fighting Fire with Petrol

    I like that the root causes of violence (crime/terrorism/etc) of poverty and disenfranchisement don't have any play in terrorism.

    The people who are susceptible to radicalization are typically poor, and feel that they have been abused and can not do anything to change the abuse via legitimate means (this may be true, or it may not, but that is the typical perception). So the way to reduce that is to squash what they can see or say as "Extremest Material", making them feel even more persecuted and powerless?

  31. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    Most "bad stuff" is hosted overseas

    So, if the government of Kablobistan doesn't track down somebody's server and unplug it, Cameron will invade Kablobistan and track down the server and unplug it?

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: Most "bad stuff" is hosted overseas

      He won't need to - he will simply call the Crazydent of the United States of Bomberica and they will get the server with drone.

      Sorry.

    2. John Sanders
      Devil

      Re: Most "bad stuff" is hosted overseas

      No, he's talking about breaking into your home and unplugging your computer.

      You silly ;-)

    3. BongoJoe

      Re: Most "bad stuff" is hosted overseas

      Yes, and liberate their oil too.

      Just for safe keeping until they ask for it back at the end of school term

  32. cduance

    This is the wrong battle to fight

    There is no way to remove all of the bad content they will just upload more on different sites and send out the new URLs.

    So what do we do?

    The way to win this battle is to upload so much $hit content using the search terms that would find this horrific content that it becomes completely invisible on the internet. Then every time someone searches for ISIS or hate filled content or similar they will end up with an episode of peppa pig or teletubbies. That is how you fight a war of information

    1. itzman

      Re: This is the wrong battle to fight

      You mean they don't already?

      The number of tomes I have googled a search term only to find myself in entirely unrelated areas of (complete non) interest.

      All the pattern tells me is who is paying google.

    2. John Sanders
      Facepalm

      Re: This is the wrong battle to fight

      Cameron like all the useless people in power has not heard of the Streisand Effect.

      Well probably he's more worried in making it disappear so no one thinks about this, rather than really doing something about it.

  33. Jonny5

    Mental gymnastics & cognitive dissonance?

    > UK prime minister David Cameron has called for “extremist material” to be taken offline by governments, with help from network operators.

    > Cameron spoke of Australia and Britain's long shared history, common belief in freedom and openness

    Am I the only one who see's the hypocrisy in these two statements?

    1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects 1

      Re: Mental gymnastics & cognitive dissonance?

      I keep seeing the name Cameron so perhaps he is getting a message across.

      I vote we start calling him arsebiscuit from now on. Unless someone takes up a suggestion and terminates the arsebiscuit.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Censorship

    Censorship by another name. Those good ol' boys in the government (and I'm talking about ANY government here) just cannot wait to pass draconian laws limiting the internet in any way they see fit. However, I feel it may be a losing battle, as there always seems to be a way around any government shenanigans - take China, for example. They try soooooo hard to maintain control of the net and their citizens but it doesn't really work. Cameron should take note and maybe get some advisers in who actually know how the internet really works and tell him he's fighting a losing battle. Alleged extremist material (and who's to actually decide this criterion?) will always be out there. Distasteful it may be but Cameron's proposals look suspiciously like the thin end of a very large wedge to me.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stupid rhetoric

    The last stupid politician to say exactly the same and over CB radios was put into oblivion. That was Shirley someone or other (Williams?) she was then in Labour. What happened oh yes Labour got kicked out and she sank after trying to start another party. I object to fraud, and "bad " sites, but to scan the whole internet all the time in all languages is impossible, and therefore stupid. An indication of how little is understood in the real world.

  36. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: Extreme Government

      Not sure I understand - how would a party of personal assistants help the democratic cause?

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  37. Someone Else Silver badge
    Megaphone

    Ooooh, Mommy! Make hin stop!

    Cameron said [PDF] poverty and foreign policy are not the source of terror. “The root cause of the challenge we face is the extremist narrative,” he said, before suggesting bans on extremist preachers, an effort to “root out” extremism from institutions and continuing to “celebrate Islam as a great world religion of peace.” [emphasis added]

    In other words: "Oooohh, Mommy! Make them stop! They're talking to me!!!"

    David Cameron, the disciple at the right hand of Cheney.

    1. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: Ooooh, Mommy! Make hin stop!

      >David Cameron, the disciple at the right hand of Cheney

      I'm sure Cameron imagines his career could benefit from a "right hand" relationship with a significant number of prominent Dicks

  38. itzman
    Headmaster

    Quis custodies ipsos custodiet?

    Nuff said?

    1. C-L

      Re: Quis custodies ipsos custodiet?

      Indeed, who will guard the guards? Emperor Cameron reared up his ugly dickhead...

  39. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Not again!

    How many times does the sky need to (fail to) fall before people will get rid of this goon... and all the others too please.

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Not again!

      He'll be out of office in May next year. And replaced with the even more more authoritarian Miliband.

  40. SleepyJohn

    They need to be stopped long before they get to the internet

    It seems to me that most of these religious extremists are being created long before they are old enough to read, never mind study bomb-making and beheading on the internet.

  41. JaitcH

    Cameron is more delusional every day

    After saying he will refuse the return of Freedom Fighters to the UK, which is not only illegal but impossible to impose on UK-born citizens, he now says he will regulate the InterNet.

    The biggest challenge is the US Constitution - freedom of speech. Do you think Obama actually likes reading about his activities on www.CRYPTOME.org or https://firstlook.org/The Intercept/ But even Obama is between a rock and a hard place.

    And Cameron more and more resembles "The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder)(Hans Christian Andersen) - the InterNet has defeated more people with skills that dwarf him.

    And is he going reach out and remove material on servers in non-UK countries that offend his sensibilities? I don't think so.

  42. Chris G Silver badge

    How about

    Passing a law that prevents politicians from talking out of their arses?

    Nobody in power would have anything to say? GOOD!

    "Cameron said [PDF] poverty and foreign policy are not the source of terror. “The root cause of the challenge we face is the extremist narrative,” he said,"

    Where does he think the driving force that becomes the 'Extremist Narrative'

    originates, perhaps all of the terrorists out there are wealthy well educated idealists like Bin Laden and they just happen to suddenly come up with extremist narrative because they are bored?

    Or maybe Dave doesn't have a fucking clue and is just spouting whatever he is given as a script from Obarmy and gang.

    I bet in certain circles he is known as Washington D. C.

    1. John Sanders

      Re: How about

      """originates, perhaps all of the terrorists out there are wealthy well educated idealists like Bin Laden and they just happen to suddenly come up with extremist narrative because they are bored?"""

      Ideology? Like you know, each time a large amount of killing happens by lots of non-coordinated individuals in different parts of the world who think alike?

  43. Sacioz

    Best tosser ever

    Many other communication systems can and will be created , sorry ...it's a lost war , they will have to come to the party , and soon , for , in the old Bibles(has been deleted) theres a quote: " ...an ther will be a war , between the Orient and the Occident , and the Orient will be the winner . Used to be in Revelations .

  44. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    It is not what know, it is who you know, and whether they want to know you ...

    ... and have anything to do with you.

    So, the consensus of informed and material opinion is that Cameron and his ilk are ignorant arrogant buffoons and dangerous in believing themselves to be otherwise and powerfully influential.

    Is it not the simply complex job of Special and/or Sublime and/or Secret Intelligence Services and Surreal Internet Networking Servers to Supply Provision of Future Sourced Material for Media Presentation as a Reality already Tested and Proven to Deliver a Harmless Peace and Expanding Harmony rather than Explosive Conflict and Valid Dissent ...... and so extraordinarily render the dangerous fool, a plaything of the past?

    Whenever that presently be the case, then are such SSSIServices and SINServers readily available to all current systems so catastrophically compromised and disastrously devoid of valuable worth ..... and quite obviously not from any of the present established systems current future source and events suppliers.

  45. Bleu

    Well PM Cameron

    sounds the voice of all talent-free bureaucrats and politcians,luvvie class in general.

  46. adnim Silver badge
    Flame

    Who's idea of extreme?

    Mr Cameron with all due respect, what right do you or any appointed body have to determine that which I will or will not find extreme? I presume I will be asked and will have an option. Or are such decisions beyond my easily swayed mind and should be left to higher mortals?

    I am fucking sick of being patronised, I know what is right and wrong. Unfortunately you don't Mr Cameron. Therefore I disagree with you Mr Cameron. I would like to voice my disagreement or dissent (dangerous word I expect) in a peaceful and lucid way via the power of words.

    Oh my, it seems my website with it's logical alternative policies and the eloquent rebuttal of all your arguments has been deemed extreme and cannot be viewed by anyone.

    Do you have a clue about anything beyond your seemingly obsessive desire to control every aspect of our lives and create a sterile, smothered society capable of nothing but capitulation?

    You earn trust, respect and a following. It's as simple as that. Trying to hide alternative views and approaches to which is "accepted" by calling them extreme will do nothing but generate mistrust.

    I accept there is extremism out there Mr Cameron. Who the fuck are you to determine what is extreme? And why am I not able to determine that for myself?

  47. bex

    The problem is who decides and what's to stop them adding things "they just don't like"

  48. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects 1

    Would it be OK

    If someone took a suggestion from someone else and killed that fat bugger before he manages to accomplish anything?

    Or would the mere suggestion be a criminal act?

  49. The BigYin

    First things first

    Start by governing Westminster, the Lords, finance, tax evasion **AND THEN** the net (if you really must).

    But no. That'd hit your paymasters too hard, wouldn't it?

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      First things first and the toxic carcinogenic carbuncle of a parasite on the body of humanity

      ...... and valid question which the System avoids like the Ebola plague being required to answer with any common sense and truthful honesty. And so it remains as a gangrenous open wound to be ruthless exploited by both germ and medicine every which way, whilst wilfully festering and killing the host virally and virilely and virtually most surely

      Just in case you missed it, The Big Yin ........ http://gu.com/p/43aee/sbl

      "Channel 4 News economics editor Paul Mason lambasts the banks and says he is 'sick' of returning to film outside the RBS offices in London after years of scandals, as six banks were fined £2.6bn for foreign exchange market rigging. He asks why no criminal charges have been brought, and says the country deserves a better banking system because everyone is dependent on banks"

      Actually, the banks are dependent on everybody else, for the money they have and require is all theirs, and they [the banks themselves] have no money at all of their own. Yes, it is a right dodgy Ponzi business they don't want you to know or think about. "Tis a monumental arrogance though to not realise that such blissful ignorance and naivety are just short temporary initial states before wisdom and intelligence kick in and take over and make over everything.

  50. OldChestnut

    I'd always assumed that the Jihadists were upset because we've been meddling in their countries for years and propping up unpopular folks like the Saud family? Just a thought Dave but I'd say that repeatedly sending this country's armed forces into Muslim countries (ref: all global media 2001 to present day) would, by any idiot's reckoning, stir up a shitstorm in response from the locals? But in the meantime, continue to perpetuate an entirely false and misleading fairy story that this problem can only be solved by increasingly repressive domestic laws.

  51. Roj Blake Silver badge

    Pull the other one

    "Cameron said poverty and foreign policy are not the source of terror."

    So it's just a coincidence that the most hated nations in the world are the same ones with a history of interfering in the affairs of other countries?

    And that many terrorist groups have in the past been supported by the same Western countries that are now fighting them?

    Here's a clue Mr Cameron: bombing people doesn't make them start to like you.

  52. roo+

    Governments can't govern

    I am glad Cameron said “celebrate Islam as a great world religion of peace.” as this is what Islam is about. I do agree that extremist messages and videos posted by retards (heh heh, re-turds) need to be removed from the Internet as (unfortunately) there are a generation of kids watching this crap and some are believing what they are hearing/seeing. But I am pretty sure the Governments of the world will mess this up very badly if they try to govern the Internet. Also not sure if an independent body can do the job any better. Maybe it should not be governed but regulated via a specific set of rules (same way a chat room is regulated)? And maybe all countries should have the same regulations? Otherwise its pointless.

  53. C-L

    Who decides what is "extreme"?

    The usual claptrap idiotic blathering from populist politicians pandering to the lowest layer of the scum voter, hoovering the most fetid of crap. Sure, the populist gets you votes. But this vote is volatile, it will turn on you and dump you when the next scum-sucking politician makes another, more moron-cativating statement.

    Why is it that YOU get to say what is extreme and what is not? Did the Queen die and left you the title Emperor in her will? Yeech!

    .

  54. JumpinJehosophat

    What a t*at

    See ... self regulating!

    Bloody Muppets

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019