Comment by mortov | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mortov | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

All UK ISPs have compulsory blocks already - courtesy of the unaccountable CEOPS under the guise of Thinking Of The Children/Child Porn. All sorts of URLs/IPs are blocked (many of which should be blocked because they ARE CP but some are not, just judged by The Powers That Be as being unacceptable [e.g. pirate bay]). There is no way to know what is on the list and no way to find out - anyone inquiring is automatically classed as a CP supporter and subject to investigation.

Coupled with the English removal of right to silence (discussed a few days ago), the UK long ago became a scary place for anyone interested in freedom and justice. [Scotland retains the silence right but don't expect that to help you much.]

We're just seeing an extension of this as people have been prepared already so it is time to extend the state monitoring and intrusion as everyone now believes it is a Good Thing(tm) because they know deep down that they truly love Big Brother.

(edit:spelling, twice. That's embarrassing)

"...many of which should be blocked..." Nothing personal, but it's opinions like this that get us here in the first place. When you make it a matter of quality instead of principle, they've won. Child pornographers should be found, charged, and thrown in dangerous jails with people who hate them, but conceding that the state has the right to control information online makes censorship a matter of 'when', not 'if'.

Your first paragraph is inaccurate. The IWF[1] does operate such a blacklist, but it is not secret and they are not involved in the blocking of piratebay by UK ISPs.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation]

I can't believe we let the removal of right to silence go. When did it happen? Did I entirely miss it, or was it before my time?

As far as I know, the major change came in the 90s in the form of "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". In other words, the court can draw conclusions about something you initially refused to comment on, but then later answered as part of your defence.

Actually it was even earlier than that; adverse inferences could be drawn from silence after the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

What a fitting year!

You can still remain silent but a jury is allowed to infer possible guilt from your refusal to answer questions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com