UK Politicians Look To Make Digital Economy Bill Even Worse: Insert Web Censorship Filter Proposal
from the [redacted]-[redacted]-[redacted]- dept
We’ve written a few times about politicians trying to fix Peter Mandelson’s Digital Economy Bill, but now it appears some politicians are trying to make it worse. One of the proposed amendments would let the government designate websites to be blocked at the ISP level. This is blatant censorship, of the kind that Australia is now trying to implement, and which China already uses. Basically, if a court determines that, via any website, a “substantial” amount of infringing content can be accessed, the court could order ISPs to block that site. The idea here, obviously, is to get ISPs to block sites like The Pirate Bay and to stifle new technologies. If this had been a couple decades ago, they would be passing laws to ban the VCR.
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, digital economy bill, filters, uk
Comments on “UK Politicians Look To Make Digital Economy Bill Even Worse: Insert Web Censorship Filter Proposal”
We have to control a free society in order to protect the artists. Poor artists.
Censorship preserves art. Everybody knows that!
VCRs are legal!?! j/k
a sure way to lose
Using the privilege of anonymity and our hard won freedom to facilitate unlawful gain for yourself is a sure way to lose both.
Online or not.
Re: a sure way to lose
Hi!
I can play too!
They who can force others to give up essential liberty to obtain a little profit, deserve neither liberty nor profit.
Re: a sure way to lose
Certainly you refer to the **AA and cronies.
Re: a sure way to lose
facilitate unlawful gain
That’s a funny way to say copyright infringement. How is infringing on copyright a sure way to lose freedom and the privilege of anonymity?
Our hard won freedom at that?
Copyright infringement can take away my freedom? Freedom to think? Freedom to speak? Freedom to breath?
Re: a sure way to lose
ur mom facilitates unlawful gain
this is getting depressing
Its worse than that
It’s not just the Government who can apply for an injunction, it’s any Copyright Owner. And the presumption is that can get their costs paid by the ISP.
No clear verification of copyright or ‘penalty of perjury’ is required.
maybe it really is a better idea to let this idiotic bill go through. everyone can say every other page is infringing and abuse the law so that no web page is available then Big Media can go back to paying shit loads of money in order to market their products on physical media instead of trying to think of ways to promote for free using the internet.
Pass the bill and say...
…bye bye Google, Bing, Yahoo, AOL, Twitter, YouTube, TwitPic, Facebook, MySpace, Photobucket, and so on and so on.
And all of this to ATTEMPT (but likely fail) to prop up a business model that doesn’t make sense in the modern age.
If it weren’t so scary, it’d be funny.
“If this had been a couple decades ago, they would be passing laws to ban the VCR.”
You spelled “the Boston Strangler” wrong.
This will certainly be circumvented
I didn’t see anything in the link addressing what happens when the block is circumvented. Is it a criminal act, if so, what is the penalty?
In china, I guess the punishment is severe. What will the UK or Australia do?
The only thing that comes to mind ....
Ooops ... the only thing that comes to mind here is...
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I see no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t’was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli’ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England’s overthrow;
Re: Ooops ... the only thing that comes to mind here is...
Amen
and do it right this time
outlaw lawyers
Re: and do it right this time
No dont outlaw them just give them the same penalties and fines as the person they represent if they loose.
Re: Re: and do it right this time
I’m not sure that would work out very well.
Something I’ve always wondered about ISP filtering;
Does it actually block connection to the web sites in question, or does it just redirect the DNS requests? If it’s the latter, can’t the filtering be gotten around by simply using a public DNS server?
Re: Re:
Does it actually block connection to the web sites in question, or does it just redirect the DNS requests?
Depends on the filter they use.
children?
there is a bit of “somebody think of the children”what the government and others have not figured out yet is that to ban something is the quickest way to gain traffic or sales. That has happened with music many time where a song has been banned by say BBC radio quickest route to a number one.
In the case of web sites any 8 year old will work round the ISP block in minutes. where if left alone would not bother.
It’s about time they limited access to certain kinds of information.
Who needs access to drug recipies, illegal movies and bomb instructions? Terrorists, that’s who.
If you’ve got nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to worry about.
Re: Re:
LOL – that’s a good one … although I’m sure there are those who actually believe that sort of stuff.
Re: Re: Re:
The future will not be kind to the control freaks.
Riiiight....
Hmm, weak argument. Lots of people ‘need’ drug recipes. Drug users, law enforcement, researchers… so why would terrorists specifically need them?
Lots of people like access to ‘illegal’ movies. (What’s an ‘illegal’ movie? Something like A Clockwork Orange used to be in the UK? Something that’s banned in some country somewhere. Maybe you mean an ‘illegally downloaded movie’…) Why does a terrorist specifically ‘need’ access to ‘illegal’ movies? Or are we talking A-Q recruitment vids here?
As for bomb instructions… maybe a terrorist might ‘need’ this, but last I heard, people were learning to make bombs long before the internet. What did the Oklahoma bomber use, a time machine to access the web? Maybe the Unabomber peered into a crystal ball to read http://www.terroristhandbook.com ? [made-up URL for those with no sense of humour] Did the IRA read tea leaves?
“If you’ve got nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to worry about” is the stupidest answer ever. It’s not even about ‘hiding’ stuff, it’s about people blocking stuff that is perfectly legitimate just because they have a particular prejudice. Anyone remember the republican senator whose own name ‘Dick’ was caught in his promoted spam filter – the one that blocked out sites containing words like Scuntthorpe…
Ask anyone who lived in Eastern Europe a mere 20-odd years ago if they had “nothing” to worry about. Or people now being recorded on secret, over-broad databases and then harried because of that. Because of course, no politician or policeman or spook is EVER evil, corrupt or stupid. And there really WERE weapons of mass destruction… 😉
Re: Riiiight....
Brilliant! Couldn’t agree more.
Not only in the UK
It happens in the U.S. of A.
Try to go to any Russian Music site like All of MP3.
The are still there but they are blocked by the U.S. and you do not even have the law yet.
The big problem of one country blocking sites is that they get blocked in other countries as well.
As a Canadian I can not access some Music sites as the U.S. has blocked them. If the internet routes through the U.S. it get blocked in Canada, even though Canada has not blocked the site.
When the winds of change ....
“…When the winds of change are blowing, some people build shelters, others build windmills …”
G