

UK porn filter to also block "extremist narrative"? - salient
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm

======
vidarh
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
_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.

------
cstross
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.

~~~
simias
I wonder, how powerful is the 1st amendment in the US exactly? How does it
deal with situations like libel, bullying, calls to murder etc... ?

~~~
sp332
I know for slander, in the USA you're allowed to say pretty much anything as
long as it's true. The UK has much stricter laws against defamation. (In the
US, the victim might sue for damages, but that's not the same as criminal
charges.)

~~~
mogrim
Even in the UK the truth is a valid defense against a libel case. The main
difference is that the burden of proof is put on the alleged libeller, who has
to prove s/he hasn't committed libel, rather than on the person who has
supposedly been libelled.

~~~
Guvante
IIRC the US requires that you prove the libeller knew it was false as well.

Basically if you act on good faith you are clear, even it isn't true. (Note
that there are requirements that you took some measures to verify the
legitimacy depending on your position).

------
flipbrad
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
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
> 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.

------
akairobotto
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
This. PMQs are basically a political dick-waving contest/circle jerk
(depending on who is asking the question).

~~~
notahacker
If you want a particularly nauseating example of the latter phenomenon, look
at the question Cameron was asked immediately after the "Islamic extremism"
question...

------
noonespecial
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.

------
Piskvorrr
...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)

~~~
viraptor
This may provide some context:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-
entering...](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) (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
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
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.

------
alt_f4
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.

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

~~~
acheron
Hadrian's Firewall?

~~~
shiven
Cameron's Cameronian Wall.

------
lmorris13
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
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
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.

------
codeoclock
First they come for the porn, etc.

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

------
knodi
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.

------
atmosx
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.

------
igl
Caution: Slippery slope

------
unmole
So it begins...

