11 ms·

UK porn filter to also block "extremist narrative"?

157 points by salient 13y ago

NicoJuicy 13y ago
And so it has begin, the great firewall of the UK
- acheron 13y ago
  Hadrian's Firewall?
  - shiven 13y ago
    Cameron's Cameronian Wall.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Speaking of which wall, I'm surprised not to have heard of any impact on the Scotland referendum of these kinds of rights restrictions.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Except it hasn't. The title is making stuff up based on bluster during prime ministers questions that have as much to do with actual, real policy as claims made on the campaign trail.
  - NicoJuicy 13y ago
    Ever saw the interview that the minister made for censoring the web in UK? You should watch it, it shows haw unknowledged some people are, to bad i didn't found it... (ps. Searched for minister UK censorship)
cstross 13y ago
Important note for readers from the US: while the UK has a legal right to free speech (via the Human Rights Act, which in turn is based on the EU Convention on Human Rights), it is diluted by opt-out provisions for public health and safety, and undermined by other laws: notably the Obscene Publications Act (1958) -- although enforcement of the OPA against works of written fiction has collapsed in the past two decades -- and other anti-terrorism statutes which make it an offense to be "in possession of material likely to be of use in the commission of acts of terrorism" (or, more nebulously, inciting acts of terrorism). Suppressing political discourse (even extremist political discourse) and using an anti-porn filter to do so is of course a horrible precedent to allow, but it's important to bear in mind that the UK has no equivalent of the solid US first amendment right to free speech.
- gr3yh47 13y ago
  Barring a jarring alteration of the existing trajectory, the US will soon have just as watered down free speech rights.
  - JunkDNA 13y ago
    Not sure that this is true. The Supreme Court in recent years has smacked down several regulations on free speech grounds in surprising ways. Campaign finance reform (aka "Citizens United") isn't a popular one on the left, but it's an example of deferring to the first amendment even when regulation has good intentions. Another case was the FDA regulation of off label marketing of prescription drugs. The crux was that you can't tell certain people (sales reps) that they aren't allowed to talk to other people (doctors) about objective facts.
    - forgottenpass 13y ago
      The two cases you cite have big differences from the "extremest narrative" that prompted this submission and alone are not a good thermometer for how the court will rule regarding speech in general. Both cases regarded speech that is already highly publicly tolerable. Sure people may moan regarding the level of rhetoric some in political ads, but it's ultimately just because they're lying. The FDA case is similar, objective facts known about drugs communicated between professionals in fields related to those drugs isn't distasteful to the public. Both cases were about otherwise-legal speech that was restricted in a narrow business context. Citizens United overturned a finance rule, not Pacifica. Those ads could have been shown before Citizens United if they were funded differently. Doctors could already learn about off label use outside of a sales call. The circumstances around the speech are important to the court. While I see no chance that regulations on religious hate speech would go over at all (especially not once the Christians realize it would apply to them too), the legal reasoning would probably not draw from either of those as precedent. If the court actually were to issue surprising rulings on free speech, they would have found in FCC v Fox that Pacifica's "uniquely pervasive" rationale no longer held. One wouldn't be too hard pressed to make the argument (although I won't) that those cases are examples of the court being business-friendly rather than broadly speech-friendly.
Piskvorrr 13y ago
...and the definition of "extremist" is defined by...? (And of course, it will eventually include "anyone opposed to the Great Firewall of Chi^H^H^H^H Britain, as its own continued existence becomes the main purpose of such tools)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- viraptor 13y ago
  This may provide some context: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering... (apologies for linking to dailymail, I couldn't find a better article about it). With events like this you can understand where the ideas of blocking extremism come from.
  - Piskvorrr 13y ago
    Still doesn't make it a good idea. Worse, it's "let's become a police state to avoid becoming a (different kind of) police state"
    - viraptor 13y ago
      Not saying it is a good idea - just wanted to provide a local context for extremism that a lot of people would likely appreciate having blocked.
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    Seems like more of an argument for rethinking the immigration policy rather than stifle the internet throughout your entire country.
flipbrad 13y ago
I instinctively reached for the 'share' button. Glad I read TFA just before I shared this, because there is no way the source says that Cameron's Net Nanny is being used to block extremist sites. All it says is that extremist sites have been taken down. That's not good, nor is it necessarily better, but let's at least be accurate, rather than try to spin this.
- __alexs 13y ago
  Cameron specifically says "blocking online sites." While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that will be done, the traditional way of achieving this in the UK is through the filters originally put in place for blocking websites associated with child abuse.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    > While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that was done He has not claimed any sites have been blocked. Nor is he exactly famed for his technical accuracy. See the discussions about the porn filter, where the entire opt-in/opt-out thing was a massive farce from one end to the other, as they decided to blatantly misrepresent the whole thing as worse than what they'd actually agreed with the ISPs. In this case he answered a question in prime ministers questions in an non-specific ways that leaves him free to do nothing. Or he could do as the title claims. But as it stands, the title is completely made up.
vidarh 13y ago
What is this? The second post in short order making up stuff about Camerons statements about blocking. I detest Cameron, but nobody is served by making up stuff like this - there's more than enough objectionable stuff in actual quotes from him. The only mention of "extremist narrative" says this: > The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe. It does not anywhere indicates that the much heralded (and vastly overdramatised) porn filter has any role in this. It is possible Cameron is up to something. It is also possible he is talking about going to court and getting a court order to take down specific sites. And quite likely, that, much like his "porn filter", it is a bunch of hot air.
- csmuk 13y ago
  We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government When the fuck did I have a say in that? Democracy my fucking arse. Plutocracy more like.
akairobotto 13y ago
Cameron was answering in response to the following question > Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures? > The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe. Because of the nature of Prime Minister's Questions, it can't be concluded that this is going to become legislation. It shouldn't be a surprise that the government wants to do, or is talking about doing this.
- tommorris 13y ago
  This. PMQs are basically a political dick-waving contest/circle jerk (depending on who is asking the question).
  - notahacker 13y ago
    If you want a particularly nauseating example of the latter phenomenon, look at the question Cameron was asked immediately after the "Islamic extremism" question...
unmole 13y ago
So it begins...
etanazir 13y ago
Speaking out against this initiative shows that you are an extremist who should be blocked.
igl 13y ago
Caution: Slippery slope
alt_f4 13y ago
Killing the free internet will not stop extremists, it will just obstruct tech innovation and cost the UK economy, in terms of job opportunities and wealth creation.
knodi 13y ago
The government should just provide software for filtering. Not shit registry that keeps track of who has the filter on or off with the ISP. This is the first step.
noonespecial 13y ago
Just another great example of the fact that if you let them build a machine that can limit speech, it will inevitably be used to limit your speech given enough time.
codeoclock 13y ago
First they come for the porn, etc.
atmosx 13y ago
so is this thing really happening to the UK? What is the happening to the UK and US? If both countries don't take a more liberal stance towards technology/society, I believe that by 2050 the Angloxosaxon empire will be history.
lmorris13 13y ago
Are there any technical details as to how this is going to be achieved yet? Things like pirate bay are supposed to be blocked by ISPs but you can access it just fine if you're using Google DNS.
- supermatt 13y ago
  Not with BT! MBP:~ matt$ nslookup piratebay.sx Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: piratebay.sx Address: 194.71.107.27 MBP:~ matt$ curl -H "Host: piratebay.sx" 194.71.107.27 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>Message</title> </head><body> <p> Error – Site blocked</p> </body></html>
  - lmorris13 13y ago
    I'm on BT too - pirateproxy didn't work until I changed to Google DNS: nslookup pirateproxy.net Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com Address: 8.8.8.8 Non-authoritative answer: Name: pirateproxy.net Addresses: 78.138.99.186 91.236.116.37 78.138.99.189 Having said that, piratebay.sx says blocked regardless what I use.

157 points by salient 13y ago

NicoJuicy 13y ago

And so it has begin, the great firewall of the UK

acheron 13y ago
Hadrian's Firewall?
- shiven 13y ago
  Cameron's Cameronian Wall.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Speaking of which wall, I'm surprised not to have heard of any impact on the Scotland referendum of these kinds of rights restrictions.
vidarh 13y ago
Except it hasn't. The title is making stuff up based on bluster during prime ministers questions that have as much to do with actual, real policy as claims made on the campaign trail.
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  Ever saw the interview that the minister made for censoring the web in UK? You should watch it, it shows haw unknowledged some people are, to bad i didn't found it... (ps. Searched for minister UK censorship)

cstross 13y ago

Important note for readers from the US: while the UK has a legal right to free speech (via the Human Rights Act, which in turn is based on the EU Convention on Human Rights), it is diluted by opt-out provisions for public health and safety, and undermined by other laws: notably the Obscene Publications Act (1958) -- although enforcement of the OPA against works of written fiction has collapsed in the past two decades -- and other anti-terrorism statutes which make it an offense to be "in possession of material likely to be of use in the commission of acts of terrorism" (or, more nebulously, inciting acts of terrorism). Suppressing political discourse (even extremist political discourse) and using an anti-porn filter to do so is of course a horrible precedent to allow, but it's important to bear in mind that the UK has no equivalent of the solid US first amendment right to free speech.

gr3yh47 13y ago
Barring a jarring alteration of the existing trajectory, the US will soon have just as watered down free speech rights.
- JunkDNA 13y ago
  Not sure that this is true. The Supreme Court in recent years has smacked down several regulations on free speech grounds in surprising ways. Campaign finance reform (aka "Citizens United") isn't a popular one on the left, but it's an example of deferring to the first amendment even when regulation has good intentions. Another case was the FDA regulation of off label marketing of prescription drugs. The crux was that you can't tell certain people (sales reps) that they aren't allowed to talk to other people (doctors) about objective facts.
  - forgottenpass 13y ago
    The two cases you cite have big differences from the "extremest narrative" that prompted this submission and alone are not a good thermometer for how the court will rule regarding speech in general. Both cases regarded speech that is already highly publicly tolerable. Sure people may moan regarding the level of rhetoric some in political ads, but it's ultimately just because they're lying. The FDA case is similar, objective facts known about drugs communicated between professionals in fields related to those drugs isn't distasteful to the public. Both cases were about otherwise-legal speech that was restricted in a narrow business context. Citizens United overturned a finance rule, not Pacifica. Those ads could have been shown before Citizens United if they were funded differently. Doctors could already learn about off label use outside of a sales call. The circumstances around the speech are important to the court. While I see no chance that regulations on religious hate speech would go over at all (especially not once the Christians realize it would apply to them too), the legal reasoning would probably not draw from either of those as precedent. If the court actually were to issue surprising rulings on free speech, they would have found in FCC v Fox that Pacifica's "uniquely pervasive" rationale no longer held. One wouldn't be too hard pressed to make the argument (although I won't) that those cases are examples of the court being business-friendly rather than broadly speech-friendly.

Piskvorrr 13y ago

...and the definition of "extremist" is defined by...? (And of course, it will eventually include "anyone opposed to the Great Firewall of Chi^H^H^H^H Britain, as its own continued existence becomes the main purpose of such tools)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
viraptor 13y ago
This may provide some context: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering... (apologies for linking to dailymail, I couldn't find a better article about it). With events like this you can understand where the ideas of blocking extremism come from.
- Piskvorrr 13y ago
  Still doesn't make it a good idea. Worse, it's "let's become a police state to avoid becoming a (different kind of) police state"
  - viraptor 13y ago
    Not saying it is a good idea - just wanted to provide a local context for extremism that a lot of people would likely appreciate having blocked.
- newnewnew 13y ago
  Seems like more of an argument for rethinking the immigration policy rather than stifle the internet throughout your entire country.

flipbrad 13y ago

I instinctively reached for the 'share' button. Glad I read TFA just before I shared this, because there is no way the source says that Cameron's Net Nanny is being used to block extremist sites. All it says is that extremist sites have been taken down. That's not good, nor is it necessarily better, but let's at least be accurate, rather than try to spin this.

__alexs 13y ago
Cameron specifically says "blocking online sites." While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that will be done, the traditional way of achieving this in the UK is through the filters originally put in place for blocking websites associated with child abuse.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that was done He has not claimed any sites have been blocked. Nor is he exactly famed for his technical accuracy. See the discussions about the porn filter, where the entire opt-in/opt-out thing was a massive farce from one end to the other, as they decided to blatantly misrepresent the whole thing as worse than what they'd actually agreed with the ISPs. In this case he answered a question in prime ministers questions in an non-specific ways that leaves him free to do nothing. Or he could do as the title claims. But as it stands, the title is completely made up.

vidarh 13y ago

What is this? The second post in short order making up stuff about Camerons statements about blocking. I detest Cameron, but nobody is served by making up stuff like this - there's more than enough objectionable stuff in actual quotes from him. The only mention of "extremist narrative" says this: > The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe. It does not anywhere indicates that the much heralded (and vastly overdramatised) porn filter has any role in this. It is possible Cameron is up to something. It is also possible he is talking about going to court and getting a court order to take down specific sites. And quite likely, that, much like his "porn filter", it is a bunch of hot air.

csmuk 13y ago
We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government When the fuck did I have a say in that? Democracy my fucking arse. Plutocracy more like.

akairobotto 13y ago

Cameron was answering in response to the following question > Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures? > The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe. Because of the nature of Prime Minister's Questions, it can't be concluded that this is going to become legislation. It shouldn't be a surprise that the government wants to do, or is talking about doing this.

tommorris 13y ago
This. PMQs are basically a political dick-waving contest/circle jerk (depending on who is asking the question).
- notahacker 13y ago
  If you want a particularly nauseating example of the latter phenomenon, look at the question Cameron was asked immediately after the "Islamic extremism" question...

unmole 13y ago

So it begins...

etanazir 13y ago

Speaking out against this initiative shows that you are an extremist who should be blocked.

igl 13y ago

Caution: Slippery slope

alt_f4 13y ago

Killing the free internet will not stop extremists, it will just obstruct tech innovation and cost the UK economy, in terms of job opportunities and wealth creation.

knodi 13y ago

The government should just provide software for filtering. Not shit registry that keeps track of who has the filter on or off with the ISP. This is the first step.

noonespecial 13y ago

Just another great example of the fact that if you let them build a machine that can limit speech, it will inevitably be used to limit your speech given enough time.

codeoclock 13y ago

First they come for the porn, etc.

atmosx 13y ago

so is this thing really happening to the UK? What is the happening to the UK and US? If both countries don't take a more liberal stance towards technology/society, I believe that by 2050 the Angloxosaxon empire will be history.

lmorris13 13y ago

Are there any technical details as to how this is going to be achieved yet? Things like pirate bay are supposed to be blocked by ISPs but you can access it just fine if you're using Google DNS.

supermatt 13y ago
Not with BT! MBP:~ matt$ nslookup piratebay.sx Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: piratebay.sx Address: 194.71.107.27 MBP:~ matt$ curl -H "Host: piratebay.sx" 194.71.107.27 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>Message</title> </head><body> <p> Error – Site blocked</p> </body></html>
- lmorris13 13y ago
  I'm on BT too - pirateproxy didn't work until I changed to Google DNS: nslookup pirateproxy.net Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com Address: 8.8.8.8 Non-authoritative answer: Name: pirateproxy.net Addresses: 78.138.99.186 91.236.116.37 78.138.99.189 Having said that, piratebay.sx says blocked regardless what I use.