Courts forcing ISPs to block anything now

FoxEye said:
I did; you can't; and for that reason, I'm out.

Let the reader make up his own mind what Cameron was actually saying.
Click to expand...
No you didnt at all, not even the guardian agrees with you.

The guardian article about it.
See how it doesnt back up what you say.

David Cameron has called on the Guardian and other newspapers to show "social responsibility" in the reporting of the leaked NSA files to avoid high court injunctions or the use of D notices to prevent the publication of information that could damage national security.

In a statement to MPs on Monday about last week's European summit in Brussels, where he warned of the dangers of a "lah-di-dah, airy-fairy view" about the dangers of leaks, the prime minister said his preference was to talk to newspapers rather than resort to the courts. But he said it would be difficult to avoid acting if newspapers declined to heed government advice.

The prime minister issued the warning after the Tory MP Julian Smith quoted a report in Monday's edition of the Sun that said Britain's intelligence agencies believed details from the NSA files leaked by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden had hampered their work.

The Sun quoted a "top surveillance source" as saying that terrorists had "gone quiet" after the publication of details about NSA and GCHQ operations.

Cameron told MPs: "We have a free press, it's very important the press feels it is not pre-censored from what it writes and all the rest of it.

"The approach we have taken is to try to talk to the press and explain how damaging some of these things can be and that is why the Guardian did actually destroy some of the information and disks that they have. But they've now gone on and printed further material which is damaging.

"I don't want to have to use injunctions or D notices or the other tougher measures. I think it's much better to appeal to newspapers' sense of social responsibility. But if they don't demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act."

The Guardian agreed to allow officials from GCHQ to oversee the destruction of hard drives in July, after the government threatened to use an injunction to block publication of information from the NSA files.

Alan Rusbridger, the editor-in-chief of the Guardian, said the destruction of the hard drives allowed the Guardian to continue reporting on the NSA files from its New York office.

The D-notice system is a voluntary code between government departments with responsibility for national security and the media. A notice can be issued to the media to prevent "inadvertent public disclosure of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations and methods".

Cameron had earlier indicated that the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies may have to evolve in light of the revelations about the reach of new technology. He told MPs: "We have parliamentary scrutiny of our intelligence agencies through the intelligence and security committee and we have strengthened that oversight.

"Our agencies operate under the law and their work is overseen by intelligence commissioners. Of course as technology develops and as the threats we face evolve so we need to make sure that the scrutiny and the frameworks in place remain strong and effective."

Parliament's intelligence and security committee announced earlier this month that it is to scutinise the extent of mass surveillance in response to the concerns raised by the Snowden leaks.

The prime minister issued his warning to newspapers after Ed Miliband raised concerns about the reports last week that the US has monitored the mobile phone of the German chancellor Angela Merkel.

Miliband said: "I join the prime minister in his support for the work of our intelligence services. It is vital, it keeps us safe and, by its very nature, it goes unrecognised. I join the prime minister in applauding the men and women who work for our intelligence agencies.

"We can all understand the deep concerns that recent reports have caused in some European countries, especially Germany. As well as providing that support for intelligence services it is right that every country ensures proper oversight of those activities."

Julian Smith, who recently wrote to the Metropolitan police to assess whether the Guardian has broken the law in publishing details from the NSA files, asked the PM in the Commons: "Following the Sun's revelations this morning about the impact of the Snowden leaks, is it not time that any newspaper that may have crossed the line on national security comes forward and voluntarily works with the government to mitigate further risks to our citizens?"
Click to expand...
 
That is a catch-all statement, which basically says only the govt can judge which material would be damaging to our intelligence services, if put in the public domain.

The way the statement is worded does *not* give the green light to more Snowdon leaks. But it does 100% say that the paper should not have printed some information it already has.

Which information? Could revealing the existence of Prism be 'damaging'? Could the fact that they were spying on allies be 'damaging'?

Certainly both of those. For any paper to comply with this statement, they must allow the govt to pre-screen all the stories and leaks. Maybe not being able to print *anything* as a result.

Because only Cameron and his chums in GCHQ can make the call, which info is 'damaging' to them. You think they'd give the green light to tell us about Prism? Think they'd give the green light to publish about Merkel's phone being tapped?

What world of unicorns and rainbows do you live in, Glaucus? One where GCHQ don't mind this info being made public? They don't want people to know anything that they do. Simples. It's *all* damaging, from their perspective.
 
Haha, more nonsense. Of course they dont want it printed. Even said that before, so why make a stupid last paragpah. However neither am I parnoid CT.

You have nothing to back it up, but at least you have moved away from hes said this absolutly, to its your oppnion, which is fine.

Goverments are bad, that doesnt mean they are bad 100% of the time. It is not black (like you think) or white(like you seem to think i am). Its very much grey.
 
Pointing out that Cameron threatened newspapers with injunctions to stop them printing more leaks = I'm a conspiracy theorist?

I don't think so. I just think that we are moving to a future where security/state control is going to be the overriding principle. Above freedom of speech, above personal liberty.

Controlling the press and controlling the internet are definitely goals of this government. Also spying on all its citizens, collecting as much data as possible, and keeping its own activities secret.

That's not CT - that's reality.
 
No thats fine.
Saying he 100% Says hes banned all further leaks, it what makes you parnoid.
When nothing says that at all, if thats your opinion fine. But thats not what you were saying earlier and quoting a one line out of context quote, doesnt prove it either.

It is quiite clear what he said they have to be responsable, unlike what you have been saying all along, that is not banning everything, and you have nothing but oppinion to back up the assumption of banning everything.
 
Enough with putting words into my mouth. In my *first* post I said he threatened to gag them if they released any more Snowdon leaks. In my *last* post I said he threatened them with injunctions to stop them printing any more leaks....

I've not actually once said he banned any further leaks. I said it was a threat. Which it is. A threat which is open to interpretation, but the broad cut and thrust of it is that he's telling them not to print further leaks, or if they do, to expect a govt response.

And now I really am out, this is pointless.
 
Glaucus said:
[F197AInjunctions against service providers

(1)The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

(2)In determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge for the purpose of this section, a court shall take into account all matters which appear to it in the particular circumstances to be relevant and, amongst other things, shall have regard to—

(a)whether a service provider has received a notice through a means of contact made available in accordance with regulation 6(1)(c) of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013); and

(b)the extent to which any notice includes—

(i)the full name and address of the sender of the notice;

(ii)details of the infringement in question.

(3)In this section “service provider” has the meaning given to it by regulation 2 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.]
Click to expand...

I can't see any mention of "main purpose of the website" in there? Or is that in some other legislation?
 
Pho said:
Smart people will just use VPN's to tunnel out to countries which don't enforce the blocks.
Click to expand...

Purchase Linode VPS, build OpenVPN connection, surf happily (and use the VPS for other useful things at the same time). :D

Took a couple of hours to get my setup running the way I wanted first time around, now I'm happily watching USA netflix and the like from my Smart TV and can browse as I like if I really want to (I don't do any downloading really so keep my browsing local). :)
 
stockhausen said:
Frankly, these sites are encouraging theft
Click to expand...

No they aren't. Nobody is stealing anything. Stealing something is to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. If i download the new thor movie, it doesn't suddenly disappear from the cinema listings.

I'm being pedantic, i know. But theft and copyright infringement are very different things.
 
Glaucus said:
No i do not mean censored. Operatives aren't the only thing and neither is it just uk/usa operatives that matter.


So going to post anything to back up this new all encompassing gaging order. I doubt it as no one has said that at all.
Click to expand...

So what do you believe they should have sanitised but they didn't? I'd be interested to know your list as everything I have read in the guardian so far has been sanitised...

Unfortunately if a government breaks the law then they should be punished, unfortunately for the government the way this is publicised is by papers printing the law breaking/bending.
 
krisboats said:
No they aren't. Nobody is stealing anything. Stealing something is to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. If i download the new thor movie, it doesn't suddenly disappear from the cinema listings.

I'm being pedantic, i know. But theft and copyright infringement are very different things.
Click to expand...

You're not being pedantic. They have different words to describe them because they are different things.

People say it's theft because they cannot help themselves, they feel the need to use emotionally charged words for dramatic effect, and to make it into something it isn't.
 
smoove said:
Just wondering what the difference between doing it that way compared to renting a VPN service?
Click to expand...

Renting a VPN is simpler but I wanted the VPS as a web server amongst other things so it makes more economic sense to me.
 
Can someone give Glaucus a holiday?

Cringeworthy reading his posts.


As for the Government locking down the internet, all it will do is push aspects of it underground. An underground which is totally unmanageable and will expose people to even nastier parts of the internet that rarely expose themselves on what we know as the 'Open Internet' now.

Drugs Supply, Child Pornography and the like.
 
Last edited:
LoL
The internet is not freedom to do what ever you want and its mind boggling people think it should be. You wouldnt want most laws removed, yet think they shouldnt't exist on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom