UK Queen's Speech: More, Faster Broadband... But It Will Be Censored And Spied On
from the some-good,-some-very-bad dept
So over in the UK, they just had the annual Queen's Speech in which the Queen lays out a bunch of regulatory proposals, and (as per usual) it's a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to the internet. As plenty of the headlines have blared, one part calls for universal broadband access, with a minimum speed of 10 Mbps (I'm assuming they're only talking about downstream speeds, rather than symmetrical, but who knows...). It would also include "automatic compensation" if your internet connection goes down. That's a very good idea as a starting point (I'd argue the speed should be even higher, but it's a start).But... with that comes some things that sound a lot... worse. First off, there would be an expansion of the ridiculous "porn licensing" program in the UK whereby sites will need to do "age verification" if they have adult content. Not that anyone's saying that porn should be easily accessible to kids, but age verification is hardly foolproof, and can lead to a variety of other problems, including undermining the privacy of web surfers and just a general chilling effect on creating certain types of content online, for fear of it being locked away or filtered if it's deemed too mature. There are also concerns about how the government implements this ridiculous plan for 10-year prison sentences for infringers, and how that will impact a free and open internet.
And then there's the expansion of internet surveillance that is equally worrisome. There's a lot of stuff about "restricting extremist activity" and trying to stop the children from being radicalized ("think of the children!"). In theory, those must sound like nice ideas, but in practice, they're a broad framework for a massive censorship regime. Free speech groups are already raising concerns about all of this:
The new proposals should avoid creating an environment that could make it even harder for people of all faiths and ideologies to express their beliefs and opinions, the groups said. Current legislation already prohibits incitement to violence and terrorism, and a compelling case for broadening them further through civil measures has not been made.As with many regulations, many of these feel like "x is a problem, something should be done, this is something" kinds of solutions, without much thought or concern to the nuances behind the implementation and the wider consequences (intended or not) of those proposals. That's unfortunate, especially when it comes to a platform as important and central to our lives as the internet.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, queen's speech, surveillance, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hey, UK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, UK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monarchs Love Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monarchs Love Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its easy, almost all politicians are authoritarian tyrants at heart, which is why the seek office, and they see their job as writing more laws, which ratchets the law towards a totalitarian state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the fact that everyone else is not really paying attention that's the problem. Government works perfectly well when people are engaged but when they abdicate their responsibilities and let politicians run wild, this happens.
It doesn't help that the vestiges of the old forelock-tugging class system remain, so people are accustomed to deferring to authority. It actually takes a great act of will to challenge the status quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You should remember your roots
- Gentlemen don't read gentlemen's mail
and
- Britons never will be slaves
You're violating both right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should remember your roots
*Only applies to the privileged, peons may be spied upon and/or enslaved at your discretion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UK is slipping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radicalisation
At present they are mostly hiding behind deceptive platitudes like "the religion of peace" which far too many people accept at face value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youths simply do not have the mental development to deal rationally with these concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Coming soon: state-sanctioned and approved belief systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with this. The problem is that literally every domestic program equates "countering extremism" with "not allowing extremists to advocate their views".
Which is precisely the same as "making it a crime to talk about unpopular views".
It's also counterproductive: censoring unpopular views leads directly to the implication that those views aren't really so unpopular. If there wasn't a fear that people would find them persuasive, nobody would bother with trying to censor them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extremist activity
Will these rules censor people like Kim Davis? Like what was said so often back then, if her beliefs won't let her do the job she's being paid to do, then she should quit.
Can someone please explain the real difference between how Iran is ruled by the teachings of Islam and how so many "Christians" want the US to be ruled by the Bible? Oh, right, one is a "good" religion and the other is "bad".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extremist activity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extremist activity
Add to the above list as you feel appropriate.
Will these rules censor people like Kim Davis? Like what was said so often back then, if her beliefs won't let her do the job she's being paid to do, then she should quit.This can be said about anyone in any job. Many jobs require you do distasteful things (as a matter of view by the occupant of the position) as a matter of law or rule. Open your mind and see the bigger picture buddy, because what you advocate may mean things get even worse - for everyone. Just because you might disagree with her position (which you are fully entitled to do) don't advocate a position or action for her that may end up being applied to you in some future context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extremist activity
Freedom means being able to make your own decisions from all the choices that are available, not the ones that are pre-approved and presented to you as if they are the only ones available.
Note the use of $boogeyman to enforce compliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extremist activity
If your religion or your particular interpretation of it makes certain actions unacceptable to you then being hired on at a government position that requires you perform those actions is probably not the best idea. Transfer to a position where you don't have to deal with the conflict of interest if possible, quit otherwise. 'Continue to be paid while refusing to do your job' is not one of the options.
If someone is being paid by the government(which is barred from endorsing or supporting religious beliefs, any religious beliefs) to do X, and they refuse to do X either in part or entirely due to their religious beliefs they either need to be fired or quit, as they are trying to force their religious beliefs on others from a position that is supposed to be free of such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extremist activity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God save the Queen,
The fascist regime,
They made you a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By her house I mean her government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Necessity is the Mother of Invention
Private Home Security for everyone. :)
With luck, all of these awful decisions by Law Enforcement and the Federal Government, about spying on the public and eliminating their Constitutional Rights, will backfire and create a huge new wave of personalized security measures SPECIFICALLY designed to keep the Rogue Government, along with the other normal bad-guys, out of your communications and personal records.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]