UK Prime Minister: We have put in place Internet filters to block extremism | Hacker News Reader

UK Prime Minister: We have put in place Internet filters to block extremism

publications.parliament.uk

185 pointstamersalama115 comments

Well that didn't take long. First it was about porn, now the naked power grab begins. Who gets to define 'extremism'? Will information that Snowden leaked now be deemed extremist material? It seems only natural that the next step will be blocking dissent and content deemed dangerous to the sanctity of the state.

People of Great Britain, I hope you're not sleeping on this. Forget the slippery slope, this is the cliff.

The people of England are stereotypically doormats when it comes to this sort of thing. Standing up for rights is not something we/they do very well.

We are the most survillienced nation, the population the most docile. That is one of the reasons I moved away, no one cares about this stuff, all they want is TV and quite often dole money. Let the filter roll out!

Of course there are exceptions, but nowhere near enough to make a real difference. The Government in England gets what it wants no matter what.

EDIT: I mean England, from my travels the other UK countries do not seem to have the same attitude as England does.

The study that made us think the UK was the most surveilled country was a 2006 report, which reported about 4 million cameras in the UK. This report was published by the UK government's /own/ information comissioner as a warning of what we could be walking into.

A more recent study a couple of years ago put the number closer to 2 million, about 90% of which are privately owned. A large number of privately owned, non-centralised security cameras are not a threat to me in any way. If the government started networking private security for monitoring by the government, /that/ would be the action that would get people (and private companies) up in arms.

Other recent government aggression, such as suspicionless stop and searches, extended detention for terrorism offences etc. were successfully challenged in the European court of humans rights within a few years. I've seen a pattern of worrying things slipping passed a sleepwalking public, then reverted later when it comes to light.

Apart from all that, this headline in particular is really inaccurate. There was no quote as strong as the subject, but the closest thing is that the PM said they were going to 'block sites' related to extremeism. This isn't a 'filter', which implies it's something automated that affects all internet activity.

The internet surveillance under RIPA /is/ genuinely frightening, but that isn't unique to the UK.

> the PM said they were going to 'block sites' related to extremeism. This isn't a 'filter', which implies it's something automated that affects all internet activity.

That sounds very much like the the Internet Watch Foundation's filter list, which was originally implemented to block access to child abuse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...)

There has been at least one case of that list accidentally blocking access to Wikipedia after an over-zealous block took out the entire domain instead of a single page, and there's no reason to believe that it couldn't be used to block far more content if the political will were there.

You mean privately controlled, like this ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/cctv_shoplifters/

Hey, they just need to suspect you and you're all over their web site. No need for any actual proof or any inconvenience stuff like an actual conviction.

Many UK retailers already share CCTV between each other and many operate central monitoring hubs for facial recognition of 'undesirables' - people convicted of shoplifting or people the police have asked them to look for.

Here, from guess where, parliament's site, is a paper explaining lots of the UK technology in use in 2002 :

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-175.pdf

Have a look at the part about Newham in London using automatic facial recognition.

Are you serious about not being worried ?

"the most docile"

I take it you didn't include the rest of the UK because of the significant number of people in Scotland and Northern Ireland who be quite happy to leave the UK? :-)

[Note that I said "significant number" rather than "majority" - the Scottish independence vote is still nearly a year away]

PS - Apologies to the Welsh for my lack of knowledge as to your feelings about membership of the UK

British leaders voted in by Scotland have shown no more respect for privacy and freedom than their opponents. The last Labour government, overwhelmingly backed by Scotland, proposed mandatory ID cards, and a child-protection Vetting and Barring Scheme which would have seen a quarter of the adult population put on a database, subject to ongoing checks.

I've seen nothing which indicates the Scottish electorate believes this is any more of an important issue than people elsewhere in the UK.

The idea that intrusion into privacy will fade away with Scottish independence is just in line with the attitude that things in general will magically get better as a result.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but worth noting that the Government of Scotland is formed by the SNP, not the Labour Party.

Yes, but the post above was saying that the English electorate is particularly docile to surveillance - I have seen nothing to indicate there is a difference between the Scottish and English in that respect. Where are the protests in Edinburgh and Glasgow indicating this upswell of opposition? I'd definitely be glad to see them.

It's possible that the SNP have different attitudes, which they would bring with them into independence, but they have not taken a public stand on the issue, and of course they have no track record either way because the devolved government does not have power in that area.

Actually, the Scottish Justice Minister "has written to the UK government stating that intelligence gathering should not be abused":

http://www.scotsman.com/news/gchq-fears-call-for-assurances-...

[NB I am not an SNP supporter, although I am in favour of Scottish independence]

Although it's nice to see a politician taking an interest, that's the mildest possible letter. The reason I say this is I can't imagine any politician, of any party not agreeing with it. "Of course," they'll say. "Intelligence gathering should not be abused. Next."

If a politician actually wanted something to change, I think they'd write a more focussed letter, with actual demands for things to change - eg how long data should be stored, independent inquiries, codified powers, public reporting of statistics on surveillance, etc.

Also worth noting that the Vetting and Barring Scheme was established in 2002 and the Identity Card Act was from 2006 whereas the SNP only took office for the first time in 2007.

While this is true, I think the OP was making the point that Labour would not have got in to Westminster (or certainly not have had so long in government) without the Scottish vote, and the Labour government in Westminster until 2010 was certainly backed by the scots.

About 10% of the Welsh population would vote for a split: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427#story_continues_...

> We are the most survillienced nation

We are? I hope you have a better source for that than yelling something about CCTV and 1984 before running away (which is the extent to which most people can make the argument).

I do agree with the rest. Apathy is the name of the game here.

Indeed. There's no evidence I've seen which shows the UK is subject to more surveillance than the US. Grainy, mostly privately-owned CCTV is a complete irrelevance in comparison to the digital/online monitoring which has recently come to light.

last i heard cheltenham was actually somewhere inside the uk.

There have been reports which indicate that GCHQ have greater capabilities than the NSA, but they are based on leaked documents, produced by GCHQ, to make themselves look good to other surveillance agencies. The NSA has a budget which is equivalent to that of the entire British military.

I was under the impression the statistics show that even negating private CCTV we have more cameras than every other nation and capital city.

Also when I was there only 5 years ago they started to build cameras that could speak to people on the street to issue fines on the spot for littering or being out of school, remotely.

Also road cameras were being deployed that issued automatic fines if the driver was eating or drinking in the car.

I have never seen that level of surveillance anywhere else in the world.

> I have never seen that level of surveillance anywhere else in the world.

I've lived in London in 13 years, and frankly I've not seen much more signs of surveillance here than in any other large city I've visited.

From Bruce Schneier:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jun/26/politics.u...

> "We live in a unique time in our society: the cameras are everywhere, and we can still see them. Ten years ago, cameras were much rarer than they are today. And in 10 years, they'll be so small you won't even notice them."

I'm agnostic on whether the UK is much worse than anywhere else in the developed world. But the main thing I've learned from the recent revelations is that what I can see by looking around me is a very small part of what goes on.

> Also when I was there only 5 years ago they started to build cameras that could speak to people on the street to issue fines on the spot for littering or being out of school, remotely.

I have never heard of this, and never seen anything like it. It sounds like a half-baked tabloid story. Where did you see these cameras?

There are at least some in London. An old housemate of mine once got yelled at by one for relieving himself in an alleyway on the way home from a night out. Nothing more came of it then that, but it is still quite creepy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6524495.stm

Any source for that other than just an impression? Would be interesting to see..

Despite being individual countries with different characteristics, they are all equally docile. Coming originally from Scotland, I can tell you the primary interest is in events affecting Rangers or Celtic football [soccer to North Americans] clubs. Surveillance ? Only of interest if it gives more details on what the favoured football club is doing. Politics is, by definition, saying how much you hate Margaret Thatcher - her death did nothing to diminish the constant blame attached to her despite it being more than 20 years since she was UK Prime Minister. The monotonous regularity would be a source of humour if it were not for the fact these are supposed to be serious people leading a country forward to independence on the world stage.

Any spying on citizens in the UK is universal - the component countries do not make a difference to that in any way. CCTV, number plate cameras etc. are all present and operate universal surveillance throughout the UK. Nowhere is there any sizeable objection to it - especially since "only people with something to hide would object to the monitoring".

UK residents would do well to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin :

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Perhaps we would all benefit from remembering the US Founding Fathers who had railed against the rot of the UK by 1776 - it is amazing how much resonance their words have today and how much their meaning has been lost even to Americans who should know better.

Ah, in China you watch CCTV; in United Kindom, CCTVs watch you.

Who watches the watchers?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/19/ukcrime-surveillan...

CCTV fails to reduce crime:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

> survillienced nation

Private surveillance not state surveillance.

...the population the most docile.

If that is true, then surely we need protection from 'extremism' because we are so easily lead. ;)

Are you forgetting the IRA who spent 24 years attacking and killing people the UK? Please respect those people who died and were injured (on both sides) before calling anyone a 'doormat'.

What an utterly daft mix of hate-backed nonsense and false statements.

"all they want is TV and quite often dole money."

Please, take your small mind elsewhere.

You could argue it was my location, however I did get around quite a bit. This is from observation and will never be assembled into statistics.

I admit it is from my own observations and I may have missed all the good apples.

I briefly knew a few people on the dole after finishing school/university. All of them were constantly broke and quickly got jobs. I don't know anyone who turned down a job so they could keep getting £56 a week jobseekers.

There are areas of the UK which have high proportion of people on the dole, but it's a tiny minority. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Fair enough, I must of been in one of bad areas. I lived in England my whole life up until I moved to Oz.

if it's any comfort to you, the reason why there's not nearly as much cameras on german streets, it's because germans even report each other for jaywalking.

Docile? How about we know when we're beat.

The government works for us, not the other way round. There is no such thing as us being beat, there is such a thing as us not getting our shit together to do something about it.

The government most definitively does NOT work for us.

Elections are a fig-leaf to give a semblance of legitimacy -- the politicians approved by the democratic process are little more than glorified PR spokespeople, whose nominal power is largely illusory; undermined and diverted by innumerable tricks motivated by callow mendacity and the insurmountable complexity of the parasitic institutions that they front: The vast majority of governmental power is unseen, unscrutinised, unelected and largely unaccountable. In most forms, government is a highly-evolved form of the protection scams run by organized criminals, and whilst hard-working and well-meaning public servants certainly do exist, my personal experience is that cynicism and greed rules the day as one approaches the more elevated levels of seniority.

So when I say that we are beat, I mean it. We are never EVER going to change this system. These guys may be corrupt as hell; evil in a "unwitting", petty, careless and banal sort of way, but there is nothing that the rest of us can do about it. We have to acknowledge that they have won the game, and that we are beaten. Our purpose in life is now to shine and polish their boots and egos in equal measure: To make sure that their coffers are full and that their jobs are secure; that their mistresses and personal vices remain secret, and that their ability to moralise, preach and generally look down on the plebeian masses remains unimpeded; to grow their ability to exercise arbitrary personal power, and to make them more secure in their roost.

This is not a conspiracy theory, because there is no explicit conspiracy to be seen, just the unrelenting grind of universally flawed human nature.

Note that the linked text does not actually support the claim in the title as of writing.

This kind of thing is hardly new - look at the daft attempts to control how the likes of the IRA were presented in the media in the 1980s:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4409447.stm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4

Monarchy is technically extremism in it's extreme nature of power concentration. It doesn't matter what excuses are made about how little power that parasitic single family has, the aristocratic system of inherited power and privilege still exists and is extreme. Let's see if anything advocating that system is blocked.

UK....achem it's even in your name,... king----dom!

Less shit link to the actual speech in question:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-10-23a.299.8#...

But am flagging for the outrageous misquote in the title.

Me too. The word "filter" is not in the text linked to, nor is "internet".

> nor is "internet".

There is this: "including by blocking online sites."

The word "filters" is not in this text

What it actually says is far less inflammatory:

"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."

"blocking online sites" implies filter, does it not? Obviously they won't actually put filter in the text, that would be far too direct for a politician.

There is a difference. A filter is a dumb blocking mechanism while blocking a specific site could involve research, warrants and so on.

It could involve "research, warrants and so on" but if the UK builds up a large enough intelligence capacity [1], Those warrants and research can be mass processed and then how is this different from a filter? It might not be dumb but it is still a filter.

[1] This might not be true, but I feel that Englands intelligence capacity per capita is far greater than any other country in the world.

That's not a sufficient reason for making up unsupported titles.

It could, but the title says they have done it, which they haven't.

How is "blocking online sites" different than "filtering"?

To me filter implies an automated system. This sounds more like they are blocking specific sites after investigating them.

I'm willing to bet the wording was picked very carefully to split this exact hair.

Automated systems get their block lists from investigations.

And I bet parliament is full of invisible pink unicorns.

We can speculate all we want, but making up claims that are totally unsupported, and presenting them as actual statements made by a specific person in this way is pure character assassination.

I always wondered, if the unicorns are invisible, in what sense are they pink?

I think that's part of the point of their proverbial existence. Their description isn't self-consistent, which is just further emphasizing these are objects that don't exist.

But then they don't match the thing being compared with, which at least MAY exist.

That doesn't make it any better.

That may be so, but that does not mean the title is supported by the article at all.

I was thinking automatic filters that would block specific pages based on the output of some text analysis algorithm. This sounds more like a manually maintained blacklist, which would be very easy to work around using different users on social media and letting followers find you on Google.

Why don't they just take the site down? Oh wait, it's somewhere else in the world out side the UK jurisdiction. Ok, so the game of cat and mouse begins, we all know how well that's worked with the pirate bay.

MP Julian Smith: "Following the reckless handling by The Guardian of the Snowden leaks..."

Cameron: "My hon. Friend is absolutely right."

Ugh.

Considering how they interrogated Miranda, hardly surprising.

I was thinking the word "diddums".

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.

This is one of the worst cases of editorialising titles I've seen on HN.

Usually I'm for allowing some flexibility in the titles, but the current title ("UK Prime Minister: We have put in place Internet filters to block extremism") is a total fabrication not supported by the linked text.

Frankly, the misquote in the title borders on libel.

"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."

The only distinctions I can see between this quote and the title are "filter" v "block" and "have" v "will". I'm not sure I see either as hugely affecting the meaning.

"Block" has a wide range of possible meanings that includes going to a court and getting a court order against specific sites.

The statement also does not indicate that this has taken place, nor does it set out any specifics of a mechanism by which this will be done.

In fact, there's nothing remotely providing evidence that there's even any actual intent to block sites, as opposed to a "series of steps" that may be used to block sites at some unspecified point in the future, subject to some unspecified set of criteria.

The title strongly implies that Cameron stated that filters are already in place. That claim is not supported at all.

Furthermore, the wording evokes filtering by type of content rather than blocking specific URLs (though that is debatable).

In any case, the title is written in a way that hints that this was a direct claim by Cameron, which in any case is outright false.

I'd love for him to have actually said this, as it would be an incredibly powerful thing to attack him with, and I find him disgusting, but making up stuff like this only serves to discredit legitimate criticism of what he is saying.

> The title strongly implies that Cameron stated that filters are already in place. That claim is not supported at all.

Filters are already in place, and have been for at least the last ten years. They're currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation under the premise of "won't somebody please think of the children", but repurposing the technology would be trivial, and could quite easily fly under the radar since its all centralised.

You are quoting what I wrote out of context. The quoted statement specifically is addressing the claimed filtering of extremist views.

> but repurposing the technology would be trivial, and could quite easily fly under the radar since its all centralised.

Could, yes. If someone wants to document that and/or make a claim about that, then let them write an article about it. There are plenty of potential problems with the IWF.

But lets try not to blatantly make up stuff and present it pretty much as if it is a quote, and link it to a page that does not support the claim made in the title at all. It does not benefit us in any way to be flat out dishonest when there is so much that can be legitimately criticised based on real, actual quotes.

>"Block" has a wide range of possible meanings

And filter means (in computer science terms) "A program or routine that blocks access to data that meet a particular criterion".

>nor does it set out any specifics of a mechanism by which this will be done.

Nor does the word filter. Plenty of filters work on specific blacklists of sites/addresses - the criteria being the URL in this case.

>as opposed to a "series of steps" that may be used to block sites at some unspecified point in the future

If we're going to be specific about what he said - he's stated that they are a series of steps that they will take, not ones that they might take. Now, he may or may not be wrong in that statement, but based on the statement that he's made, it's not a matter of if - it's just a matter of when.

>In any case, the title is written in a way that hints that this was a direct claim by Cameron, which in any case is outright false

The statement I quoted was from the Prime Minister. Beyond you choosing to add your own interpretation to the word "filter", the only incorrect piece is whether it currently exists or is in the process of being created.

You think there's no difference between "exists" and "planned to exist"?

Thank you very much for making me realise I am wasting my time reading Hacker News comments.

Did I say there was no difference? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

What I did say was that I don't think it makes a huge difference to the relevance of the story.

Clearly there is some level of difference between "it will happen" and "it's already happened", but as far as whether the plan to filter/block is something we should care about or not, the difference doesn't seem massively significant - at least not to me.

Maybe you'd enjoy Hacker News comments more if you actually read what they said rather than adding your own interpretation...

It's not even explicitly "planned to exist", but some unspecified number of "steps" using some unspecified number of criteria leading to some unspecified form of blocking, which might very well include a court order and which might very well be challenged in court without ever being put into place if Cameron actually ever even tries to make use of it.

Keeping in mind that this is a country where known extremist clerics have been able to continue to preach and organise and avoid extradition despite successive governments trying their hardest to have people thrown out and making rather extreme statements about it.

In comparison, this is an entirely non-committal statement about "something" which may or may not turn out to be something to worry about and some unspecified time in the future, should Cameron actually care about it rather than just having rattled off something to sound good in parliament.

Not sure how you read it as non-committal. He's said in parliament that he will take steps including blocking online sites linked to extremism.

And I'm also not sure why you think there would be any realistic likelihood of them being thwarted in court, given the fact that the courts have already ruled that ISPs have to block access to sites like PirateBay. It's difficult to believe they'd be more precious over protecting access to sites that the government claim are extremist.

> this is an entirely non-committal statement about "something" which may or may not turn out to be something to worry about and some unspecified time in the future

This oddly also describes pretty much every surveillance state apologist/rationalization I've heard as well.

Such as the one posited today by Cameron and his counter-terrorism task force.

I believe the main purpose of the state is oppression, and that the state should be gradually and totally dismantled. You'll find no rationalisation for a surveillance state from me.

But I don't believe opposition to Cameron is at all served by blatantly making shit up, and that is what this title does.

Agreed, the title should read:

UK Prime Minister: We have "to expand our" Internet filters to block extremism.

Which is more accurate, but arguably worse, considering it implies the internet filters already exist and the prime minister already intends to expand it's use before it's completely implemented.

The filters do indeed already exist, and have done for some time. They were originally (quietly) implemented by ISPs when the government made it clear that they could cooperate, or they could have it made law and far more expensive to implement. The list of sites to block are currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation, with the aim of preventing access to child abuse, but could quite easily be expanded to cover other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...

Your "improved" title, as you admit carries a bunch of implications that are not in any way supported by the text.

Making stuff up only serves Cameron, who can write off genuine opposition as hysterics.

Well, given that the UK government is coercing ISPs into implementing filters for a range of material that extends way beyond extremism and pornography, I'm inclined to let this instance slide: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/uk-prime-minister-davi...

Is there a quote in the title at all, much less a misquote?

The actual quote:

It's like watching a horrible accident occurring and knowing that you can do nothing.

We are still free to leave the country (for now...).

VPNs are still legal, but may be monitored, maybe with help of the long arm of the US.

Cameron has a warped idea of "democracy" if he thinks this is compatible with it. Citizens are entitled to know the opinions of people everywhere, even the hostile or angry ones.

Not to mention the likelihood of secret blocking of more than they're telling the public. Hopefully there will be lists of what is actually blocked, from groups in countries where such investigation can be done safely.

I wish politicians would one day face the same amount of word-scrutiny a concerned HN poster/commenter does.

Every so often the idea pops into my head that maybe people are just using HN as a low-risk place to test their corporate communication skills.

Maybe they don't even do it maliciously. The same way a freemium game can A-B test their way into an unaware but disgusting exploitation of human psychology, all while the were just trying to use metrics to discover what's fun.

So I see HN as a chance to practice, or (more specifically) organically stumble upon rhetorical tricks that play to the audience's desire to let reasonable discussion occur while not actually embodying it.

I mean, it's either that or someone is purposefully using a politician's playbook for reshaping conversations.

Internet filters are extremism.

http://www.aaisp.net/

No filters.

AAISP are awesome and any self-respecting geek should be using them but they would have no ability to affect filters of this kind, only the optional porn filter, which they do disable.

Yes they do. The internet isn't a simple star based network where every access point can be controlled. It's a dynamic system (powered by BGP). Router advertisments can fuck up any content filtering instantly if desired.