Tory terror changes promise moon on stick The Home Secretary's revamped anti-terrorism strategy, Prevent, may include moves to blacklist some internet pages and websites. The policy is due for release this afternoon but copies of the Prevent strategy have already been seen by the Times, which said more will be spent on countering extremism online. AOL is already …
"The Internet Watch Foundation is usually rolled out as an example of how a blacklist can work successfully. It told us that its success depends on its very tight remit of child sexual abuse images and that this was unlikely to change in the immediate future"
I don't really consider the IWF as an example of a successful blacklist. For a start, the list is a closely guarded secret, so we dont really know what on it. I know it sounds like i thinks its a big conspiracy, i don't. I just dont like the idea of having a black list that no-one i allowed to see.
And I believe Theresa May will become a violent extremist in the future.
How do I go about reporting this? I cant wait to get the police investigating all the people I believe are planning to disrupt our society and social values.
Its good that being a doctor now makes me just as good at terrorist spotting as spending years in MI5/MI6/Special Branch. Roll on the New World Order.
You mean by blocking an encyclopaedia article about an album (causing disruption to a number of said encyclopaedia's editors), and a number of filehosts (affecting downloads of legitimate files as well as dodgy ones)?
And how long until Anonymous have a bot running on this AOL search thing to generate over 9000 false positives?
This post has been deleted by its author
... I apologise - I initially down-voted you, and listened to my sarcasm meter and changed it. The problem with your comment is that we do get posters here that would say that and (claim to) mean it. People who seem to believe that they are "realists", and that people who want a better world in which justice reigns are naive dreamers and "Potheads" (you know who you are).
"Doctors will also be trained to spot patients likely to become future terrorists."
Really? Is that from the published strategy? I must have read that 5 or 6 times and then reread the whole article again as I figured that I missed the point and it was an elaborate El Reg joke.
"A specialist police unit has removed 156 pieces of material in the last 15 months, the Times reports."
I'm guessing that means the police have removed 156 sites (or part thereof) from the internet at large? Not that they have removed 156 items from the black list, or 156 bits of lint from their jumpers...
"I'm guessing that means the police have removed 156 sites (or part thereof) from the internet at large? Not that they have removed 156 items from the black list, or 156 bits of lint from their jumpers..."
I doubt we can ever find out. They can produce any made up numbers to show how good they are then, when anyone is questioned about it, they can roll out the fear and boast about having removed 156 PIECES OF TERRORIST MATERIAL! Wow, thats 10 a month.
This way, the listener can imagine this to be boxes of C4, armalites, etc. When it could just as easily be words on a webpage.
Secrecy works against democracy.
You just need to check for jeans and a T-shirt.
My experience of the Met's specialist anti-terrorism detection capabilities are limited to trying to get into a defence trade show at Edexcel while wearing (gasp) jeans and a t-shirt.
I had left my company logo shirt and suit on the stand, cos I didn't fancy a walk across London in the summer in a suit or a tube ride with a baby-killer-corporation logo shirt.
He wasn't interested in my exhibitor pass or business cards - I obviously looked like a wrong-un. Meanwhile people were streaming in by simply wearing a nice suit. Eventually he got a call on his radio and wondered off - presumably somebody muslim looking wearing a suit was taxing their powers of logic.
is "cognitive dissonance". To paraphrase, that terrible moment when reality clashes with prejudice.
Or more properly:
Atherton J S (2011) Learning and Teaching; Cognitive Dissonance and learning [On-line: UK] retrieved 8 June 2011 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
Yes, it is currently my phrase of the week.
There are standard questionnaires Doctors use for measuring Anxiety and Depression. They ask about feelings of worthlessness, sleeping patterns, thoughts of self-harm, and so on.
Maybe they can add as a final question:
I have thought about becoming a terrorist -
1) Every day
2) Almost every day
3) Less than half the time
4) Very rarely or never
That would sort things out.
And so how are you feeling? Just relax now - hmmm - yes - well maybe take a little more gentle exercise a couple of times a week and perhaps stay off the fatty food to see if that settles down. Now I'm just looking at your blood count - yes that looks quite normal, your cholesterol is fine, no sign of diabetes so nothing to worry about there. So how do you feel about the restoration of the caliphate and have you had any problems passing water?
This post has been deleted by its author
you have a problem if you think that either labour or con-dem ever had an original thought.
Their "serfs" (full-time-non-political-non-democratic-public-servants) do the thinking for them. All they have to bother their pretty little heads with are thoughts of allowing the unions to strike as long as they don't strike, and putting my gas bill up by 24% for "government obligation to help the environment"
http://tinypic.com/r/2rer141/7
Some facts;
Dr Harold Shipman killed more people than any terrorist in the UK, probably even more than the Lockerbie bomber.
Former terror suspects are now in the Northern Ireland Executive.
And this smells of naked political censorship, restricting what you can read in a democracy.
Strong nations confront terrorism, by refusing to sacrifice freedom for a little security.
I guess that makes us a weak and feeble nation.
It doesn't matter which side of the fence you vote for, exactly the same shit happens.
I see plenty of people who get into screaming matches arguing the merits of left vs right in politics and none of them seem to understand that there is nothing between them.
Sure, are a lot of little things they do differently. The left sure does like its wealth redistribution schemes but when it comes to the big issues, war, terrorism, trampling on citizens rights and generally chasing bigger and bigger government at every opportunity then they are pretty much indistinguishable.
Clearly there are people behind the scenes who make the really big decisions. The public service mandarins have their part in that of course, but even they answer to faceless authorities who are the real string pullers.
Some think the Bilderburger Group are those people. Personally I'm not sure, which is sort of the point. Nobody knows who they are.
What is obvious is that the people we vote for are not the ultimate powers in our respective countries.
This post has been deleted by its author
>> WIKIPEDIA Ref: (For the literately-ignorant)...
"Nineteen Eighty-Four (sometimes written 1984) is a 1948 dystopian novel written by George Orwell, about an oligarchical, collectivist society. Life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control. The individual is always subordinated to the state, and it is in part this philosophy which allows the Party to manipulate and control humanity. In the Ministry of Truth..."
Thank "BB" that the Government is FINALLY getting around to the serious threat of THOUGHT-CRIME. And, I was afraid that the mindless-sheep (that the English People, had, so glaringly, become) might actually show some (or, ANY...) BACKBONE, and stand up to such obvious TYRANNY.
But, what do you expect from the most surveilled nation in the world, where the "citizens" actually allowed their-own government to deprive them of almost EVERY, basic, human-right (that has ever been fought, or died, for)..? ...including the RIGHTS of "privacy", and "self-defense"?
PATHETIC..!
Though... I DO wonder what the English-People will do if there is an American Civil-War (I'm sorry... "massive civil unrest") now plainly expected by millions of U.S. citizens (many of whom, are actually preparing themselves for exactly this eventuality)... a growing number of, well-respected, "historians"... and which is actually being OFFICIALLY planned, and prepared, for, by numerous U.S. government institutions and agencies.
...the English will probably just do, whatever their government-propaganda departments tell them to do. I mean... after all... "THERE'S A WAR ON"... Right..?
Remember:
War is Peace...
Freedom is Slavery...
Ignorance is Strength.
Again... PATHETIC..!
This post has been deleted by its author
the next time one of the Foreign Office's more bathetic representatives follows the USA's ineffable Ms Clinton in castigating a foreign country's lamentable lack of respect for «human rights» in an international forum, that country's representative stands up and asks if the previous speaker is familiar with a certain Theresa May....
But of course, «our» media will only report the first part of the interchange and then turn to the necessity of bombing the bad guys in order to protect the population....
Henri
Hayfever medication overdose?
First, that religious pseudo moralistic power-grab by the "think of the childrenz" gang, now this?
So, they're going to blacklist internets to prevent terrorism and radicalisation. Did it help the Russian Czar Nicholas II in 1917?
Oh, wait - there was no internets then and still they could not stop dissemination of bolshevik materials! How about Samizdat in the Soviet Union - did internets blacklist help then? No? Why not?
Perhaps, if we stop invading one country after another for no apparent reason other than creating "legacy" for incumbent Prime Ministers, the threat of terrorism will not be such a big threat in the first place?
This post has been deleted by its author
and I did not speak out --
Because everyone hates pedos
Then they came for the Islamic Fundamentalists, and I did not speak out --
Because they were almost as bad as the pedos
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the Socialists, which was funny because it was the Socialists that started this process in the first place,
Then they came for the photographers in public places and the Wikileakers and the Playstation hackers and the iPhone jailbreakers and the filesharers and the fans of music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats" and the people who put their bins out on the wrong day, etc... and me,
So I blew them all to hell with IEDs I constructed by following instructions in The Anarchist's Cookbook, which was ironic because I only downloaded it and subsequently got blacklisted because I wanted to arm myself against further errosions of freedom.
No, the Internet Watch Foundation, does not have a "very tight remit of child sexual abuse images" because the law is very, very much wider than that and much less well defined. The remit is every photograph of a child which anybody could take offence at not matter how innocent that photograph may be. The word in the act is "indecent" and that is anything that the police/CPS/court do not like or nearly any photograph in the posession of somebody that they do not like. The act does not mention pornography or child abuse.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
