Police to control internet content !

It will be nothing but rows of government supporters over here if the UK Police get the new powers which they are after.

www.guardian.co.uk...

All they have to do is define "inciting terrorism' as any questioning of the government or asccusation against it and they could charge a large number of ACT members with a serious crime.

Of the line, concearning internet crime fighting: ......... "to "suppress inappropriate internet usage." ........

If there are not clear and distinct sub-paragraphs to that, to limit the scope of use, this statement is as a Trojan, perhaps a Pandoras Box, as it would open far too many doors to Internet abuse by the powers that be.

Everyone does realize the PA II is, basically, mirrored in Blairland, yes?
[just an observation, don't go rippin' for sources]

Misfit

There will be a government firewall with in 10 years in the UK....

thats what will end up happening.

Can they really do that?

Senior officers also want powers to attack and close down websites, and a new criminal offence of using the internet to prepare acts of terrorism, to "suppress inappropriate internet usage".

A criminal offense to prepare acts of terrorism. Ok lets define terrorism.

Defining Terrorism
The statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” has become not only a cliché, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism. The matter of definition and conceptualization is usually a purely theoretical issue—a mechanism for scholars to work out the appropriate set of parameters for the research they intend to undertake. However, when dealing with terrorism and guerrilla warfare, implications of defining our terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussions. In the struggle against terrorism, the problem of definition is a crucial element in the attempt to coordinate international collaboration, based on the currently accepted rules of traditional warefare.

Emphasis mine

Definition of Terrorism - Wiki
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. According to expert Walter Laqueur, "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence."

This criterion alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism—war, organized crime, revolution, or even a simple riot. Typically, further criteria are imposed to narrow the definition down, but what these critera are chosen to be varies widely. One 1988 study by the US Army discovered that over 100 definitions have been used.

The most common criteria are that:
The motive is political or religious
The target is civilian/noncombatant
The objective is to intimidate
The perpetrator is non-governmental
The act was unlawful
The act was violent
The act was premeditated
None of these is universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficent.

Emphasis mine

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. In this case the law they are willing to pass could involve blocking content of ANY site that is indifferent of the governments theories and opinions.

This is wrong. Sure to shut down extremist websites is one of main things you can do but you must look at both angles. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

So anyone that is a freedom fighter can now "theoretically" be called a "Terrorist".

And what was it George said after 9/11 - "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." - Feels like I'm between a rock and a hard place.

~Peace ~

[edit on 25/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

On the news in the UK today reporters were saying that the internet was highly influential in transforming young muslims into terrorists, with this type of statement flying round it won't be long until the firewall mentioned above is in place. The internet only seems to make the news these days if its something bad being said about it.

Running tonight (25th July 2005) on BBC2:

Details.

"Peter Taylor's three part series examines the new al-Qaeda which has emerged and the threat it poses to the West. The first part, jihad.com explores how the internet has become the lifeblood of the new al-Qaeda.

He says: "The only safe haven that remains for al-Qaeda is the virtual realm. It is one that we all should be worried about.""

Coincidental timing, one could suggest ...

And of course "Al Qaeda is not an organisation it is a way of working" (Tony Blair) so if you say anything they don't like then you are Al Qaeda?

The underlying theme is G Bush's statement that "if you are not with us you are with the terrorists" . . . . this fascist idea means that anyone who declines to support him is a terrorist, and so even the mildest opinions could be seen as terrorism.



It doesn't look good.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart


And of course "Al Qaeda is not an organisation it is a way of working" (Tony Blair) so if you say anything they don't like then you are Al Qaeda?

The underlying theme is G Bush's statement that "if you are not with us you are with the terrorists" . . . . this fascist idea means that anyone who declines to support him is a terrorist, and so even the mildest opinions could be seen as terrorism.



It doesn't look good.

Your right, it doesn't look good at all.

Well, who knows what would happen if they passed the bizarre concept of "internet control functions" to the Police in a certain antipodean island nation, where 70% of police computers have been found to contain large volumes of porn and undesirable material. And the excuse that it is "research" never held much water.

With all the more violent havoc going on presently it was easy for the British police to slip in the added demand that they will expect a high level of international co operation from other police forces when controlling internet content. . . .sounds like such a small thing, co operation being such a community minded and warm fuzzy kind of a concept, but the catch is that if this happens then we will have a global police force.

With ECHELON, Menwith Hill, GCHQ, Hanslope Park, Hunters Stones they can sniff e-mails, boards etc etc. Blocking sites seems counter-productive, better to be able to track them.

Echelon:
cndyorks.gn.apc.org...

Menwith Hill etc:
homepage.ntlworld.com...
(great site BTW)

there is a very good thread on ECHOLEN on ATS somewhere, i believe its in RATS

Originally posted by CTID56092
With ECHELON, Menwith Hill, GCHQ, Hanslope Park, Hunters Stones they can sniff e-mails, boards etc etc. Blocking sites seems counter-productive, better to be able to track them.

Echelon:
cndyorks.gn.apc.org...

Menwith Hill etc:
homepage.ntlworld.com...
(great site BTW)

i agree CTD they will use the info to track suspects rather than supress all info IMO..they need all the intelligence they can get in this situation rather than block the info..they may come up with new ways of monitoring but i think they will always keep the channels open if they can glean some info from it

Lol, I love these "goverment will control the internet" threads and simliar topics. They are complete bullcrap, plain and simple. when you visit say only 50 websites, or dont have any knowledge of the infrastructure of the internet, it seems entirely possible for the goverment or police to put a choke-hold on it.

The reality is they would have to reign in 1000s of companies from small local ISPs with maybe 50 customers, to giants like BT, Verio, and others that service massive areas. The ammount of money necessary to undertake such an operation negates its usefulness as it would cost an astronomical ammount over the long haul and end up as a waste of money better spent on other things.

Even if such a level of control were possible, the legions of coders, hackers, phone phreaks and such would still tear holes in the filtering methods just like the have done to various technologys that hinder functionality.

alternateheaven, do you really think your ISP, or anyone's for that matter is going to offer any real resistance to Federal Officers waving guns and cease and dessist orders? Get real dude. If Uncle Sam wanted to shut down a server, it is as simple as stating it is a terrorist related investigation, and off you go. You have a poor understanding of the powers of the Federal Government if you think they can't police the internet. Ask Indymedia, the FBI has no problem seizing servers that weren't even on American soil.

i agree CTD they will use the info to track suspects rather than supress all info IMO..they need all the intelligence they can get in this situation rather than block the info..they may come up with new ways of monitoring but i think they will always keep the channels open if they can glean some info from it

I love how people can support "big brother is watching you". It makes me sad!!! Very sad, we have to come together and do something. NOW!

This site might be an illustrative read, as models for how state intervention in the internet could work.

[edit for context: original post was too narrow in scope initally]

[edit on 28-7-2005 by 0951]