Radical UK Net censorship plan, new libel laws
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- With Australia’s Net ‘filter’ scheme in the background, Britain is calling for dramatic Net censorship measures, including online X-ratings, a mandatory time-limited ‘take down’ requirement for sites such as YouTube, and new libel laws.
“New standards of decency” need to be applied to the web, says culture secretary Andy Burnham in The Telegraph, which goes on:
“He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.”
The Net is, “quite a dangerous place” so ISPs need to offer parents “child-safe” web services, the story has him saying.
Asked directly if age ratings could be introduced, “Yes, that would be an option,” he confirmed. “This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.’
ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky, “could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children,” says the story.
According to Burnham, “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.”
The Telegrap doesn’t include comments from Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, on the UK’s new Net censorship plans, but, “There is content that should just not be available to be viewed,” says Burnham.
“That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”
The story states »»»
Mr Burnham reveals that he is currently considering a range of new safeguards. Initially, as with copyright violations, these could be policed by internet providers. However, new laws may be threatened if the initial approach is not successful.
Burnham also wants new industry-wide “take down times” which would mean sites such as YouTube or Facebook, “alerted to offensive or harmful content,” would have to, “remove it within a specified time once it is brought to their attention”.
In addition, the government is, “considering changing libel laws to give people access to cheap low-cost legal recourse if they are defamed online,” says The Telegraph.
Net ‘filter’ scheme – Oz Net Censorship plan still on track, December 27, 2008
The Telegraph – Internet sites could be given ‘cinema-style age ratings’, Culture Secretary says, December 27, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
‘Public Interest’?
I think Im old enough to decide what is acceptable ‘viewing’
Why dont you catch firebugs, robbers, or murders
The Internet is the Peoples not the dumb Government
December 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
YouTube v. Warner
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,24832815-5014239,00.html
December 27th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Hey, great idea! Why don’t we burn all the books we don’t agree with while were at it? I think we should hunt down anyone who has impure thoughts and toss them in jail as well.
December 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Censorship is a slippery slow. It starts with blocking illicit content, then it moves to silencing political opposition, a la china. And who knows where it ends… The internet should be free of government interference; it should be allowed to evolve naturally. Because it now represents a financially vast opportunity, all kinds of old world organisations are trying to a grab a piece of the pie. And with such opportunities come the corrupt and power-hungry wishing to establish hegemony; often in the zealous form of meddling governments.
December 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Whatever happened to parents doing their job, rather than having the internet act as a babysitter? I thought that it was odd enough with the video game industry suddenly being required to play the parental role. Admittedly, I don’t have much of a problem with being required proof of being over 17 to buy mature rated games. I’d much rather not see a 12 year old playing manhunt, but then again many parents just buy games for their children without considering game content.
This is where the whole grand theft auto controversy came from to my understanding.
December 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
So, how do I “protect” myself from this despotic government, with an unelected dictator at the helm who is already responsible for the worst financial crisis to hit the island since the Second World War?
I wish there was a firewall that blocked these ************* from screwing with my life. (censored to “protect” the citizens).
(sigh!)
December 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The irony is that many of the politicians dreaming up these laws to “protect” us are among the most depraved. British MPs in particular are known for liking little boys.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Why the Australian Filter wont Work.
I have been following with great interest the recent announcements by The Communications Minister, Senator Conroy about his intentions to filter the Entire Internet for Australian Internet Users.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,24833959-5014239,00.html
NOW THE SENATOR CLAIMS HIS FILTER WILL EXTERMINATE P2P
I represented at the Senate Committee Hearings in 1995 that the internet could not be regulated or adequately filterd (http://wopared.parl.net/Senate/committee/comstand_ctte/online2/c03.htm Scroll down to Section 3.24)
Specifically I said :
o the content of the Internet cannot be regulated because of the ’sheer volume’;
o there are technical difficulties in achieving regulation because, no sooner is information filtered from one source, it becomes available from another site;
o graphic image format (GIF), such as a photograph or a digital image, is very difficult to automatically scan for offensive content, since to a computer it is a series of bits and bytes;
o as the Internet grows, even more people will want to publish material, making control even harder; and
o anti-porn software filters on the receiving computer in the home or school work only on text, but then have difficulty coping with the volume. Filtering of multi-media messages, involving animation, video or voice, is impossible. (Evidence, 12.10.95, pp. 137-8).
Now the senator has announced that the filter will also filter P2P.
Unfortunately the P2P methodology is not the exclusive domain of P*dophiles (asterisk required to ensure we don’t get filtered) illegal music or film downloaders.
The internet is a selection of starburst nodes, each node consisting of a cluster of users and an ISP, connected to other starburst nodes.
It started as such in 1979 and still operates the same way. The design is intended so that traffic from one user on Starburst node A can get to either a single or multiple users on starburst node B.
In other words Person to Person (or Peer 2 Peer). The difference with the internet is that it added two elements to the traditional methodology of delivery. Routing ability and packetization.
If we used Australia post to send a postcard from A to B and it accidently became mangled somehow in one of the sorting machines and had a corner torn off it, it is highly unlikely that that the corner with no address details would ever be rejoined with its lost counterpart (the rest of the postcard).
Packetization enables the disassembly of data (pictures, videos, songs, letters) into small delivery packets that are sent over and over again until the user at B says “Got it!” or in Internet Packet parlance “ACK” which is literally derived from “Acknowledged Receipt”.
Routing is all about finding detours when the bridge is washed out. The internet automatically heals itself for small outages and re-routes its packets via network C or D or E.
However, there is a problem, and its very similar to the problem that many in built-up areas encounter every morning during morning ablutions. Where has the water pressure gone. In other words, when 2 million people all have a shower at 7:00 am, the water pressure drops a little.
The internet is the same. The peak load periods are traditionally 9:00 am to 9:30 am, 3:30 pm to 4:30 pm and 8:00 p, to 9:30 pm. At this time there is minimal bandwidth available (water pressure) because everyone is doing their thing.
The problem started to become severe when Video services like Youtube began streaming across the internet. After all, they are very large files and benefit only one person, the viewer. If every person in Australia want their own TV channel we would soon run our of channels (most Televisions cant handle more than 999 channels).
To solve this problem, companies started writing software that would take advantage of the popularity of the videos being watched by people on the same network segments as you.
These programs utilize the P2P method to offload bandwidth from the network. The easiest analogy I can give is the old “Party Line” system that existed (mainly in regional areas) up until the late 1960’s. The telephone line was shared between several users. If the call was for the Smiths, the phone rang twice, if it was for the Browns, it jangled three times, if for the Jones, 2 short and one long ring. And quite often, Mrs. Smith, Mrs., Brown and Mrs. Smith would all get on the phone together to share their news simultaneously, in this manner, gossip was streamlined and delivered instantaneously to everyone.
That’s basically P2P. In your Network there are three users watching the same program. If all three were to download the file from Youtube, then that requires three separate download streams across the entire internet. If however, all three users were to download a different part of the file and share the parts amongst themselves, then everyone would get the file faster and more economically.
Unfortunately for us, this is the future of the Internet. Why do I say unfortunately ?
Because the Senator is about to Filter the Internet and P2P and almost 50% of P2P content is legitimate content provided through software like Miro, TVU, POPEYE and the UK’s BBC Networks extremely popular IPLAYER.
Another example of Politicians not really understanding the technology
Tom Koltai – 27th December, 2001
About Links
MIRO http://www.getmiro.com/about/what-is-miro.php
TVU http://pages.tvunetworks.com/doc/whatis.html
POPEYE http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081003123244.htm
IPLAYER http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/12516.cfm
December 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“He who sacrifices freedom in the name of security deserves neither.”
Benjamin Franklin.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
We all knew this was coming.
Hillary Clinton and John MCcCain both saw, first hand, how
fast information flows on the net, and better yet, how quickly
Disinformation can be vetted.
All governments fear this more than anything else.
The RIAA has found out too, to their chagrin, how fast
corporate lies can be shredded as well
Free flow of information, in minutes.
Soooooo easy to see who is lying, and no more relying on
government ( or corporate ) controlled media for the ‘truth’.
Protect the children is always the rallying cry.
Hide the truth is the inevitable result.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
This can’t be allowed to happen.
It’s the last true free speech zone in the world.
How easily will we give this up in the name of ‘decency’ ?
December 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Tired of assholes sticking their fat fucking noses in peopled life’s just because they don’t have a life of there own…Who the fuck are these shit heads anyway and where do they even come from?? Just a bunch of cum stains on the carpet before fat whore of mum rolled onto them !
Andy Burnham Is probably a gay virgin living with his mum and has a tiny 2 centimeter prick. that’s why he cares so damn much about it…honestly who the hell cares about censorship? It’s one of the most damaging things in human development cause it stunts your natural mental growth… If you bubble wrap your kids they’ll only become weak pussy’s that can’t cope in the real world…
December 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
” The Net is, “quite a dangerous place” so ISPs need to offer parents “child-safe” web services, the story has him saying. ”
This is why THEY need “child-safe” web services:
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
Mein Kampf; the Ralph Manheim translation published by Houghton-Mifflin, 1943. pg 403.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
This is all about control
Thats it thats all.
Control what people can see and read, thus they can’t make objective opinions against their gov, and you control them.
Damn right the US is going to jump on this and support it.
So will the single-celled politicians Canada has in parliament who find facebook dangerous because the masses can talk politics.
December 28th, 2008 at 12:25 am
The Internet. It was nice while it lasted.
December 28th, 2008 at 2:40 am
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
That is eerie man. It’s shocking how quickly the UK is becoming a fascist state; spearheaded by Andy Burnham of course. Clearly these administrators don’t learn from past mistakes, so we need to change the form of government to return more power to the people in the form of referendum and consultation.
December 28th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Now people can finally begin to see Governments are dictators in disguise and need to gain back control of them and strip there powers to justa small roll of protecting freedom. Ron Paul understood this.
December 28th, 2008 at 3:46 am
we need to do something about these opressive goverments, and fast. we need to change the system there thretening our freedoms
December 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Cheaper ways to sue for internet libel. What a laugh!
Rather than encouraging vexatious and frivolous actions the government should be routing out these people and preventing them from abuse of the courts. The High Court has thrown out some ridiculous cases recently.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Interesting – just when the courts are starting to re-think libel laws the government blunders in! This will encourage more chancers to try to earn a living out of alleged libel on the internet.
December 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Everybody calm down, this is utterly meaningless.
Why?
Well, it’s like I’ve been saying for several years now (but nobody seems to be GETTING it for some reason):
The idiotic, latin-drenched drivel scrawled by “lawmaker” is utterly irrelevant. What IS imposrtant is which of the idiotic scrawls those in power can meaningfully enforce. This simple truth ultimately boomsdraconian bullshit by it’s very nature.
Do you REALLY think the so-called “total States” of Nazi Germany, the former Soviet bloc, China, North Korea etc. REALLY are that “in control?”
The ultimate solution to the problem of bad law has been obvious for a hell of a long time: RAMPANT, CONTINUOUS, UBIQUITOUS disobedience and law-breaking. Laws only get changed when the pigs (which is all those “in power” ever are or have been) finally admit that they are unable to brutalize a significant proportion of the populace into obdience.
THIS is why hackers, “crackers”, phreaks, dissidents — whatever you want to call them — are so important: they’re the ones who are willing to spit right in the face of bullshit like this, and NOT even give it the “benefit of the doubt”.
The ONLY way apartheid continued to “work” in South Africa (to use one example) was for the majority of the population — black and white — to continue obeying it. When the State figured out that it has to spend even MORE of it’s (already over-stretched) enforcement budget on attempting to censor the Internet, this’ll quickly crumble like everything else they declare “war” on.
The WORST this that can happen is for the populace to believe that those “in power” actually CAN succeed. Then they stop resisting, and become compliant. At this point, nobody can ever afford to be a “good citizen” again, in ANY country, simply because we should know by now that every “statesman” is at least a potential autocrat, and slavery is ALWAYS prefaced as being “for our own good”.
I’m not saying “blood in the streets” here, people — I’m just saying “gum up the works”.
Tacet Qui Consentire Videtur — He who does not protest is understood to consent.
Now, as I told our pal “Sam” a long time back, “protest” takes many forms, from demonstrations in the streets all the way to mass disobedience of an odious law. The Net is “dangerous” — to those who wish to control the flow of information, and enforce orthodoxy.
George Orwell was very aware of the “smutty little orthodoxies” of his time and culture, and one of the “smutty little orthodoxies” of our time, is that it’s the State’s job to censor what we see/hear/read/say “for our own good.”
Resistance is NEVER futile, because you ALWAYS WIN: even if they still trample you, their advance is just THAT MUCH SLOWER.
The “Squeaky wheel” doesn’t just get the oil — it also throws off sparks.
Okay, enough motivational slogans. If you’re in the UK, you should probably mail your local representative or whoever it isa polaroid of your ass — demonstrate that it’s not just the Net where “inappropriate” images can be found.
December 28th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
They cannot control every aspect of the net however hard they try and every victory for free speech is a nail in the coffin of censorship, this government will fall before censorship is allowed to take hold, be warned politicians dont make the mistake the RIAA has and start a war you cant win, things will be much worse because the public know who you are and where to find you and whilst you can hide some of the time you will face the peoples justice all of the time.
December 28th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
“New standards of decency” need to be applied to the web, says culture secretary Andy Burnham in The Telegraph, which goes on:
“He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.”
YA and obama has the power to do that as does he.
This leaders really are fuktards aren’t they. Just who do they think they are majority leaders.
if 40% of your country dont vote for you and you only got 60% of the 60% that did that means 64% of the average people out there DONT LIKE the govts that exist, or at best don’t favour them.
Sooner or later all these rights you take away are going to explode into there faces and when it happens don’t say that I CHRoNoSS didn’t warn you.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
It’s funny because they don’t actually know anything about the Internet.
Or at least, not enough to understand the utterly counter-productive implications of trying to apply censorship directly to those already most enlightened and opposed to it.
You might get away with banning controversial material from cinemas, or banning feature films on the internet,
but you couldn’t ban controversial material on the internet, any more than you could ban feature films from cinemas.
I mean, it’s kind of “the point”.
The last people you would try to censor are those most committed to freedom of speech.
Oh wait, we are the last people they are trying to censor.
Fight to the death, anyone?
As far as I remember, the geeks have repeatedly beaten government and big business,
the Internet has already given People the power to collaborate like never before.
Government always used to win, because of its naturally superior numbers, communication and broad possibility for organization.
Last time this got fucked over, when everyone got guns.
So what’s the chances of the next social revolution in a modern nation to produce a constitution, enshrining the Citizen’s right to unrestricted Internet access?
Oh yeah, better add in all the old rights as well, cuz somehow they’ve disappeared… õ.O