4 ms·

The UK police is so massively underfunded since austerity started in 2010 that it's no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. They just

The UK police is so massively underfunded since austerity started in 2010 that it's no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. They just don't have the manpower to enforce something so prevalent and hard to police. The bigger surprise is that they have enough manpower to fill the freedom of information request to begin with. That's probably the reason the other two departments refused to answer.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
I thought the second half of the article basically disposed of the notion that lack of resources was the reason for refusing to answer. > West Yorkshire Police received the same request (pdf) and was able to confirm that the words ‘UFO’, ‘UAP’, ‘ALIEN’ or ‘SPACESHIP’ appeared in log text 1805 times.
cornholio 3y ago
> no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. I can only fathom "viewing illegal streams" leading to arrest in the case of CSAM. Regardless of any staffing or resources, it's a complete travesty to arrest anyone for using their internet connection to view lawfully produced content. The power to restrain the physical liberty is a substantial corollary of the state's monopoly on violence, which should be employed when those arrested are a menace to other peaceful citizens. I could see law enforcement getting involved in copyright crimes committed by commercial pirates, issuing fines to consumers or identifying them to the rights holders who can then seek redress in a court of law.
- duxup 3y ago
  Yeah if it is tied to a larger / other crime I could see it happening if only because they're really looking into another issue.
- ta1243 3y ago
  There are companies selling boxes which stream massive amounts of material they don't have the rights to, for very large profits. Some teenager watching the latest game of thrones (or whatever's hip nowadays) because their parent doesn't subscribe to Sky, or because they were out when it was on, isn't really the same thing.
- 127361 3y ago
  Nobody should ever be prosecuted for viewing or reading anything, anywhere. Doing so is a hallmark of a de-facto police state. It's a fundamental liberty we have forgotten about as the frog has slowly boiled over the last 40 years.
  - WheatMillington 3y ago
    Do you honestly believe that viewing CSAM shouldn't be a crime? Is this really the logical end-point of this style of techo-libertarianism?
    - mmh0000 3y ago
      Yes. Imagine how easy it is to get people you dislike arrested with a bit[1] of CSAM. On the other hand, I feel that creating and/or distributing CSAM should result in instant death for the creator. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon EDIT: Creating and/or distributing.
      - 127361 3y ago
        This is just the tip of the iceberg: Bluetooth keystroke-injection in Android, Linux macOS and iOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 These laws which criminalize viewing or reading things need to go now.
    - 127361 3y ago
      Yes, absolutely. It is today's equivalent of moral puritanism. It is absolutey inconceivable to me that a 21st Century society could be prosecuting people for viewing images. Distributing and making those images should remain a crime, of course. But absolutely not viewing. And we can continue to shut down the sites hosting such material, and encourage those who come across them to report them. It is not acceptable to prosecute someone for the act of viewing a web site, regardless of it's content. Doing so is absolute totalitarianism. In a free society, people should be able to browse any part of the Web without fear of punishment, it is fundamental. That includes exploring the darknet, one of the most interesting parts of the Web, without having to fear prosecution for unintentionally coming across child pornography.
crote 3y ago
> The UK police is so massively underfunded Is it, though? According to the government itself, funding has increased from 12B in 2015 to 17B in 2023[0]. In real terms, the UK police now has more funding than it had pre-austerity (16.5B in 2023 money). If they don't have the manpower, it isn't due to a lack of money. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-...
- wulfeet 3y ago
  2015 is not pre-austerity.
  - crote 3y ago
    No, but 2010 is - that's where the 16.5B is from.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  > Is it, though? It is. Police cuts here in Scotland are dire. If your house gets broken in to they won't even visit. Squatting is on the uprise including violent behaviour. The list is too long to even mention. https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-cuts-071123.pdf https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-...
  - LAC-Tech 3y ago
    Why do you equate this to police being underfunded? They just care about other things way more. Like people writing mean things on the internet.
    - gadders 3y ago
      Exactly https://archive.is/v1YwM https://archive.is/v1YwM "..the teenager prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Instagram, because the music in question included the N-word. The 18-year-old girl, who has Asperger’s, was given an eight-week curfew and had to wear a tag, though the conviction was later overturned."
ranger_danger 3y ago
why would the police be involved in the first place? how is this not a civil issue for the courts to decide? certainly that would be the case in the US.
gadders 3y ago
They don't even turn up for burglaries, so I don't think someone is going to get their collar felt for watching a dodgy stream of Strickland/DuPlessis on their laptop.
- graemep 3y ago
  Depends - the people lobbying for copyright law enforcement are rather more influential than the average person who gets burgled. Then there is PICPU and presumably other specialist units that do nothing else.
  - gadders 3y ago
    I think if you have a business selling iptv gear then you could get nicked, but I doubt if individual streamers would (unless it was in a pub).
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
The UK police is busy hunting people for their tweets.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

I thought the second half of the article basically disposed of the notion that lack of resources was the reason for refusing to answer. > West Yorkshire Police received the same request (pdf) and was able to confirm that the words ‘UFO’, ‘UAP’, ‘ALIEN’ or ‘SPACESHIP’ appeared in log text 1805 times.

cornholio 3y ago

> no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. I can only fathom "viewing illegal streams" leading to arrest in the case of CSAM. Regardless of any staffing or resources, it's a complete travesty to arrest anyone for using their internet connection to view lawfully produced content. The power to restrain the physical liberty is a substantial corollary of the state's monopoly on violence, which should be employed when those arrested are a menace to other peaceful citizens. I could see law enforcement getting involved in copyright crimes committed by commercial pirates, issuing fines to consumers or identifying them to the rights holders who can then seek redress in a court of law.

duxup 3y ago
Yeah if it is tied to a larger / other crime I could see it happening if only because they're really looking into another issue.
ta1243 3y ago
There are companies selling boxes which stream massive amounts of material they don't have the rights to, for very large profits. Some teenager watching the latest game of thrones (or whatever's hip nowadays) because their parent doesn't subscribe to Sky, or because they were out when it was on, isn't really the same thing.
127361 3y ago
Nobody should ever be prosecuted for viewing or reading anything, anywhere. Doing so is a hallmark of a de-facto police state. It's a fundamental liberty we have forgotten about as the frog has slowly boiled over the last 40 years.
- WheatMillington 3y ago
  Do you honestly believe that viewing CSAM shouldn't be a crime? Is this really the logical end-point of this style of techo-libertarianism?
  - mmh0000 3y ago
    Yes. Imagine how easy it is to get people you dislike arrested with a bit[1] of CSAM. On the other hand, I feel that creating and/or distributing CSAM should result in instant death for the creator. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon EDIT: Creating and/or distributing.
    - 127361 3y ago
      This is just the tip of the iceberg: Bluetooth keystroke-injection in Android, Linux macOS and iOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 These laws which criminalize viewing or reading things need to go now.
  - 127361 3y ago
    Yes, absolutely. It is today's equivalent of moral puritanism. It is absolutey inconceivable to me that a 21st Century society could be prosecuting people for viewing images. Distributing and making those images should remain a crime, of course. But absolutely not viewing. And we can continue to shut down the sites hosting such material, and encourage those who come across them to report them. It is not acceptable to prosecute someone for the act of viewing a web site, regardless of it's content. Doing so is absolute totalitarianism. In a free society, people should be able to browse any part of the Web without fear of punishment, it is fundamental. That includes exploring the darknet, one of the most interesting parts of the Web, without having to fear prosecution for unintentionally coming across child pornography.

crote 3y ago

> The UK police is so massively underfunded Is it, though? According to the government itself, funding has increased from 12B in 2015 to 17B in 2023[0]. In real terms, the UK police now has more funding than it had pre-austerity (16.5B in 2023 money). If they don't have the manpower, it isn't due to a lack of money. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-...

wulfeet 3y ago
2015 is not pre-austerity.
- crote 3y ago
  No, but 2010 is - that's where the 16.5B is from.
doublerabbit 3y ago
> Is it, though? It is. Police cuts here in Scotland are dire. If your house gets broken in to they won't even visit. Squatting is on the uprise including violent behaviour. The list is too long to even mention. https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-cuts-071123.pdf https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-...
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  Why do you equate this to police being underfunded? They just care about other things way more. Like people writing mean things on the internet.
  - gadders 3y ago
    Exactly https://archive.is/v1YwM https://archive.is/v1YwM "..the teenager prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Instagram, because the music in question included the N-word. The 18-year-old girl, who has Asperger’s, was given an eight-week curfew and had to wear a tag, though the conviction was later overturned."

ranger_danger 3y ago

why would the police be involved in the first place? how is this not a civil issue for the courts to decide? certainly that would be the case in the US.

gadders 3y ago

They don't even turn up for burglaries, so I don't think someone is going to get their collar felt for watching a dodgy stream of Strickland/DuPlessis on their laptop.

graemep 3y ago
Depends - the people lobbying for copyright law enforcement are rather more influential than the average person who gets burgled. Then there is PICPU and presumably other specialist units that do nothing else.
- gadders 3y ago
  I think if you have a business selling iptv gear then you could get nicked, but I doubt if individual streamers would (unless it was in a pub).

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

The UK police is busy hunting people for their tweets.