It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UK House of Lords Follow China and Australia, Propose Internet Censorship Bill

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:27 PM

UK House of Lords Follow China and Australia, Propose Internet Censorship Bill

As China, Iran, and Australia initiate draconian efforts to shut down the internet as an alternative news source, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom is mulling a similar attempt to block dissenting voices. The so-called Digital Economy Bill, essentially ignored by the media, would allow the Secretary of State to “a technical obligation on internet service providers” at the whim of the government.

Francis Davey, who offers legal advice to technology and media firms in computer and internet law, notes on his blog that a provision under consideration by the House of Lords — specifically clause 11 of the proposed legislation — would provide the means to block “undesirable” web pages such as WikiLeaks and other whistle-blower sites. The clause would also allow the government to block peer-to-peer networks.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edited for some quick touch-ups.]

[edit on 16-12-2009 by sowerby]

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:27 PM
I initially stumbled upon this after reading a thread discussing how members of ATS were approached to partake in an h1n1 study. Here's a link:

Mental health institute, formerly headed by MK Ultra researcher, recruits ATS members for H1N1 study

Anyway, I read and researched what I could on the topic. It does seem that this Digital Economy Bill allows for the possible blocking of "undesirable" websites.

You can read the Bill here.

It states that

The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—
(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under section 124G; or
(b) any other consideration.

In the original article cited in this post, the terms "technical obligation" and "technical measure" are defined.

The previous clause defines “technical obligation” as follows:

A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.

A “technical measure” is a measure that — (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

So, are they really attempting to control the internet? The Digital Economy Bill states that a technical obligation could be imposed in steps taken by OFCOM deemed appropriate in the view of the Secretary of State. So the Secretary of State can decide what is "appropriate" for OFCOM to block, more or less, and that's that? The word "appropriate" is rather relative, wouldn't you say?

For reference, Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the communication industries in the United Kingdom.

I thought maybe a few of you would be interested in this.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:20 AM
S & F

How dare they try to impose censorship on the net?

Talk about controlling.

One day, we will try to access the net and we will not be able to.

This is very worrying - it is as if those idiots we voted in and those dopey boozy old lords are controlling us - what can we do to prevent this?

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:17 AM
Basically, short of turning into criminals and murderers ourselves, becoming what they are, there is nothing.

Every single day I hear about more of the outright evils these monsters commit. The injustice of our corrupt legal system which is heavily weighted in favour of the guilty, even going as far as protecting violent and sex offenders who get a fine or suspended sentence at best, while the victims dont get the justice they deserve.

They are not human. They should be classed and treated as animals because they sure as hell dont do anything to benefit the human race, only their own selfish desires. They should be put down like the rabid animals they are.

We're screwed. Just make the most of what we have while we can.

new topics

top topics

log in