
New monitoring powers 'to tackle terrorism' proposed - jsingleton
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32896921
======
madaxe_again
This is about "combatting online terror" in the same way that reducing the
benefits cap is about "helping working people".

Newspeak and doublethink abound.

~~~
kropotkinlives
Those two points are 100% factual.

The benefits cap reduction paid for people who are working to have their
personal tax-free allowance raised and decreased the reward for not working
ergo they are helping working people by providing tax relief as a reward. This
just isn't the same "helping working people" soundbite that the vocal minority
of media and population are annoyed about however which is where the disparity
arises.

They _are_ ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online
terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still
doing it so they can be seen to be doing it.

Now I don't necessarily agree with the situation, would personally smash the
state in a second, nationalise all industry and live as a strong fisted
respectable worker under a common flag, singing Auferstanden aus Ruinen in a
second but newspeak and doublethink it is not.

~~~
fweespeech
> They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online
> terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still
> doing it so they can be seen to be doing it.

The stated intention of combating online terror. However much like their ISP
filtering, it was used for things other than the stated purpose within the
first 6 months.

~~~
DanBC
ISP filtering has not been used for other things.

There are three seperate systems:

1) the mandated porn filters; these are optional. Some of them have
granularity so the customer can select other categories of stuff to block

2) court ordered blocking of torrent sites. These are quite seperate from the
porn filters and they require a judge to rubber stamp an order.

3) the IWF lists of sites dealing in images of child sexual abuse. This is a
system voluntarily used by most UK ISPs to filter sites that contain images of
child sexual abuse.

When arguing against them it's probably useful to at least be factually
accurate about the different systems.

~~~
fweespeech
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141208/06160229348/uk-
we...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141208/06160229348/uk-web-
filtering-blocks-access-to-website-europes-largest-oldest-hacking-
community.shtml)

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-
cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep)

I mean you can deny these things happen I guess? Before Cameron started
meddling, this stuff was far less frequent and far more reasonable.

~~~
DanBC
That kind of stuff has been happening forever. Of course it's more common now
- every UK customer is now covered. But anyone who's been behind filters at
work or school can tell you that filters have always had false positives.

Focussing on those cases is probably a mistake. They're caught in filters by
accident, and the people responsible say "whoops!" then tweak the filters to
unblock the charity sites. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-
and-tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/news/o2-changes-porn-filterafter-charity-sites-blocked-9023209.html)

And we've seen this rhetoric from politicians - "this is complicated; mistakes
do get made; but we adjustthe filters when mistakes are made; and we need the
filters because TERRORISTS or EXTREME PORNOGRAPHY".

~~~
fweespeech
Yet mysteriously other countries and the UK for decades have been fine without
them.

[https://www.blocked.org.uk/faq](https://www.blocked.org.uk/faq)

You are aware they block things like dating sites as a matter of policy unless
you opt-in to the "perv list", yeah?

~~~
DanBC
So what? You call it a perv list, but you also point to the high rate of false
positives. So someone opting out of the filters isn't chosing to view porn but
is chosing to view a false positive.

You seem to think that I think the filters are a good idea. I don't. I do know
that using factually wrong information when talking about the filters does not
help when you're trying to change law.

~~~
fweespeech
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/22/war_on_erupts_in_bri...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/22/war_on_erupts_in_britain/)

Its a term that was used for years in relation to the filter that it was about
"perverts".

For someone dedicated to factual accuracy, the fact you seem to think commonly
used terms in relation to something are "wrong" is proof you really don't get
it.

------
higherpurpose
It seems like this is proposed in the same way the Patriot Act was proposed to
the public. "We need this to go after those suspected of terrorism". Yet the
bill allowed them to intercept data of many more people and not just for
terrorism, but drug crimes and so on.

If what they really need is to go after "suspected terrorists", then all they
should need is a warrant from a judge. But of course this bill is not about
that. It's about spying on _everyone_ , and about censoring "extremist speech"
(I assume the government gets to decide what is extremist, too, and not a
judge?).

Checks and balances are supposed to exist for a reason. We've played this game
before giving governments total power to "do stuff", including "protecting
us", "improve the economy", "national security", whatever. It doesn't end well
for the population. In fact, it ends exponentially worse than any "threat"
mentioned when the government asks for such powers, for every single person,
not just those "who have something to hide" or are "extremist".

~~~
hahainternet
This was proposed many years ago but blocked by the Lib Dems. Now the people
of the UK destroyed the Lib Dems, there's nobody to oppose this.

A lesson in picking the lesser of evils. Nobody will learn it though, and the
UK is screwed for the forseeable future.

~~~
alextgordon
The Lib Dems were destroyed because their core vote hated them. A lesson in
not double-crossing your core vote.

Edit: Apparently the Lib Dems are universally loved, and never did anything
wrong. I retract my statement.

~~~
zelos
14,000 new members of the Lib Dems since the election would suggest it's not
as simple as that.

------
jsingleton
Relevant: [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2015/05/thoughtc...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2015/05/thoughtcrime.html) (previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564281](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564281))

If you care about this sort of thing then please consider joining the ORG
([https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/](https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/))
and/or writing to your MP.

~~~
JupiterMoon
> writing to your MP.

One of the few advantages of a fptp voting system is that MPs have a very real
constituency link. If enough people write on issues like this then MPs have to
either listen or accept that they are directly losing support. So please do
write to them.

------
beedogs
England has always been about five years ahead of the rest of the world when
it comes to authoritarian garbage like this. Look for these sorts of bills to
be introduced in other places if it's successful there.

------
x5n1
We need more control because of fear.

~~~
hellrich
I thought it was more fear because control...

------
AC__
All 5-eyes partner nations are passing egregious legislation such as this,
these programs are being brought in under the guise of combating "terrorism"
however are more designed to monitor and quell civil unrest and thwart would
be dissidents.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Don't forget the chilling effect on free speech.

