powers to shut websites

[Gremlinzzz]

Police seek powers to shut websites
you agree or disagree?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11845961

I disagree gives them too much power.

[MasterNetra]

Police seek powers to shut websites
you agree or disagree?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11845961

I disagree gives them too much power.

Police here in the USA can do it under certain circumstances. e.g. Child Pornography, Software Pirating, etc.

[joepie91]

Absolutely against. There's a reason you have to consult a judge for these kind of things.

Something about splitting the powers? I believe that applies to the UK as well. Trias politica etc.

Especially seeing as things like ACTA and other filters in various countries have so far only shown incompetence in the IT field.. it would be a very bad idea to give police the power to shut down a website.

[conradin]

Most police I've met are bumbling idiots with 0 clue about technology in the slightest. Sure, theyre good guys, but I would like someone to at-least understand whats going on. I bet they try to shut down google after a bit for google is the source of a bunch of malicious hacker activity.

[MasterNetra]

Most police I've met are bumbling idiots with 0 clue about technology in the slightest. Sure, theyre good guys, but I would like someone to at-least understand whats going on. I bet they try to shut down google after a bit for google is the source of a bunch of malicious hacker activity.

Correction "I bet they try to shut down google after a bit for google is the source of a bunch of malicious cracker activity." Hackers don't break into systems, crackers do.

[d3v1150m471c]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - The fourth amendment of the US constitution

"...Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-The fifth amendment of the US constitution

*Ahem*, not no but hell no. Any Judge in his right mind will shut this down.

edit: i didn't notice the .uk tag above, here's hoping the brits have similar policies.

[sydbat]

I bet they try to shut down google after a bit for google is the source of a bunch of malicious hacker activity.


Correction "I bet they try to shut down google after a bit for google is the source of a bunch of malicious cracker activity."Well, if you're going to be technical - "I bet they would attempt shutting down Google, because Google is the source of malicious cracker activity."

[czr114]

This goes way over the line, just like so many other techno-policing initiatives out of the UK as of late.

Those behind it don't seem to understand that it's useless. If it passes, any site which might worry about being shut will register under a different TLD, leading to no reduction in the targeted material.

The next decade will be a rough era for privacy and freedom. Those who seek to use it to create a transnational surveillance/police state aren't going to give up and go quietly.

They've already started an even worse assault in some countries, by planning to eliminate anonymity by means of government-issued PKI on national ID required for Internet/website access.

[Sporkman]

Correction "I bet they try to shut down google after a bit for google is the source of a bunch of malicious cracker activity." Hackers don't break into systems, crackers do.

Maybe 40 years ago, but no longer. In modern usage, the word "hacker" = someone who gains unauthorized access to computer systems.

Sorry. :)

[khelben1979]

I voted: disagree.

Increased data security in the web browser and better anti-scam and anti-spam software protection should be given higher priority so we have the possibility to avoid bad websites instead. The police have more important things to do, I think.

[Johnsie]

Only in certain circumstances... Child porn etc. I don't think sites like Wikileaks should be pulled down. Without getting into poltics, it's in the public interest for people to know certains things that people are doing around the world. It's the biggest story in the IT world right now, but sadly this site is censoring anything relating to it.

[MooPi]

Most police I've met are bumbling idiots with 0 clue about technology in the slightest. Sure, theyre good guys, but I would like someone to at-least understand whats going on. I bet they try to shut down google after a bit for google is the source of a bunch of malicious hacker activity.

You just keep thinking that. These days police have very sophisticated tools for computer forensics and intrusion detection. At least I know the local force has the tools and the knowledge. They wised up when they found that the crooks were ahead of them on the learning curve. They've even gone to Open Source tools to bust the bad guys. But yes there is a need for a judge and due process for liberties to be compromised.

[Gremlinzzz]

Only in certain circumstances... Child porn etc. I don't think sites like Wikileaks should be pulled down. Without getting into poltics, it's in the public interest for people to know certains things that people are doing around the world. It's the biggest story in the IT world right now, but sadly this site is censoring anything relating to it.

no you cant really talk about Wikileaks without getting into politics and the forum have a policy. but I do like that word hacktivists.

[Evil-Ernie]

Trouble with giving the police more power is that they will find uses for that new power that wasn't the intended purpose, take for instance the terrorism acts that came in the wake after 9/11 and 7/7. So far these new powers to protect our country from attack have been systematically used against our on UK citizens to break up legitimate protests, put people on survailance for non-terrorist activities and other such instances where Human Rights get in the way.

To give the police power of our online information would be a huge mistake, if there is a need to close down websites for any reason it should fall on a new service seperate from the forces with transparancy in how they decide if a site should be taken down or not.

FYI I'm not anti-police, I think they do a difficult role and are required for our society, however it should be clear what jurestriction they have and not this blurring of the lines. First hand I have seen the police being amazing but I have also seen the police being ghastly...

[3Miro]

A judge should have the power to shut down child porn and scam sites, but not the police. The police may arrest a person, but they can never convict or fine or confiscate property, only the judge can do that.

Shutting down web-sites is way too easy of a way to violate the freedom of speech.

[sydbat]

A judge should have the power to shut down child porn and scam sites, but not the police. The police may arrest a person, but they can never convict or fine or confiscate property, only the judge can do that.

Shutting down web-sites is way too easy of a way to violate the freedom of speech.Tell that to ICANN...

[bodhi.zazen]

Websites are tools and if they are misused they should be shut down.

Personal freedom ends where one's behavior or "freedom" harms another or infringes on the freedom of another. My right to clean air trumps your right to smoke, for example. Or another classic, you do not have the right to yell "Fire !!" in a crowded theater as another.

With that said, I would err on the side of as much tolerance as possible. Some sites, ie child porn, obviously should be shut down. In less obvious examples, we should advocate tolerance.

I would like to see some of the spam sites shut down (I hate spam). I would like to see some of the various online tracking sites shut down, etc.

[PhenixRising]

Sure, theyre good guys, but I would like someone to at-least understand whats going on.

The police are not good guys. A lot of them are horrible people that consistently abuse their power. I've known a few cops and I would never describe them as good guys. However there are a few decent cops in the world but as a hole I would never say that cops are good in general.

I also have a huge problem with authority figures.

[lisati]

Personal freedom ends where one's behavior or "freedom" harms another or infringes on the freedom of another. My right to clean air trumps your right to smoke, for example. Or another classic, you do not have the right to yell "Fire !!" in a crowded theater as another.
Exactly. There's no point me jumping up and down about my freedom to smoke if, in the process of smoking, I hurt, annoy, or otherwise inconvenience someone else.

One of my favourites: With freedom comes responsibility.

Sadly, some of the people I've met over the years don't understand this. (And yes, I smoke, and I try to be aware of and sensitive to those around me who might not appreciate me sending pollution their way.)

[KiwiNZ]

Exactly. There's no point me jumping up and down about my freedom to smoke if, in the process of smoking, I hurt, annoy, or otherwise inconvenience someone else.

One of my favourites: With freedom comes responsibility.

Sadly, some of the people I've met over the years don't understand this. (And yes, I smoke, and I try to be aware of and sensitive to those around me who might not appreciate me sending pollution their way.)

I saw recently an interview with a boy street racer where he proclaimed it was his right in a free country to street race. Some how he seemed to think that all the road rules did not apply to him.

It is the same with these sumbag web sites, they believe that all laws including common decency do not apply to them.

[NCLI]

To be honest, I think it should be the UN's jurisdiction, and all decisions should be reversible by the UN Court of Justice.

[KiwiNZ]

To be honest, I think it should be the UN's jurisdiction, and all decisions should be reversible by the UN Court of Justice.

What ever Nation in which they are based it is that nations sovereign right to police and control.

[Doctor Mike]

Maybe 40 years ago, but no longer. In modern usage, the word "hacker" = someone who gains unauthorized access to computer systems.

Sorry. :)I guess I'll never be able to take those old tee-shirts out of the closet? Got to wonder if hacker somehow got associated with "a hack", i.e., Hack is a term used primarily in stand-up comedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-up_comedy), but also sketch comedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketch_comedy), improv comedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improv_comedy), and comedy writing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_writing) to refer to a joke or premise for a joke that is considered obvious, has been frequently used by comedians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian) in the past, and/or is blatantly copied from its original author. Funny how the cracker is the user (described above) of tools created by the hacker (who's intent was not malicious), but of the two one is labeled a hack...

[NCLI]

What ever Nation in which they are based it is that nations sovereign right to police and control.
I generally agree, but I feel that websites should fall under a different jurisdiction.

[red_Marvin]

Police here in the USA can do it under certain circumstances. e.g. Child Pornography, Software Pirating, etc.
If these two terms can be put in a box together, then I would say that the first thing to be done should be taking a few steps back...


Websites are tools and if they are misused they should be shut down.

I would say that sites are more like houses or nations, you get there by explicitly entering and when there, you have to abide by the hosts rules. (eg. in this forum, you cannot defend yourself with 'freedom of speech' when accused of breaking the coc.)

I guess I agree with your conclusions, just not with your metaphors d:

As long as a country does not invade others (spam) or break the basic human rights (eg cp) there should be very few valid justifications for taking action against it from the outside.

[v1ad]

first thing you know drop box gets shut down, due to users storing pirated software.

[Arex Bawrin]

I like the notion that these powers fall under the jurisdiction of the website's host country. As for the OP's original question however, I believe some sort of government agency (OH NOEZ!!!!) should have the ability to shut down certain websites based on an ammendment that needs to go into the constitution (strictly speaking about USA). This way we don't have to go to a judge every single time a website must be shut down. The court systems are already bloated enough.

[KiwiNZ]

Websites are more akin to publications, if a publication breaches decency regulations then the Censor/police can have them removed from the shelves etc. The same applies to websites, if a website is say carrying Child porn then that website can and should be closed by the authorities in the Host country and appropriate legal sanctions imposed.

[NCLI]

Websites are more akin to publications, if a publication breaches decency regulations then the Censor/police can have them removed from the shelves etc. The same applies to websites, if a website is say carrying Child porn then that website can and should be closed by the authorities in the Host country and appropriate legal sanctions imposed.
I get what you're saying, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[handy]

Looks like my post was removed/censored.

This whole topic is political...

Anyway, that's what happens when you cross a line in someone else's mind.

[KiwiNZ]

I get what you're saying, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

it's a touchy subject and one not easily discussed here. Myself like everyone must keep in mind the Forum COC.

There is a lot I would like to say, and my views would surprise many but on my hands I shall be seated.

[mips]

Site that do child porn or stuff that's genuinely illegal like scamming people or selling fake goods etc should be shut down.

But it's a slippery slope as the same reasons are usually used to shut down legitimate sites governments find objective etc and there have been many examples of this.

[Bodsda]

Quite an interesting thread, many different opinions and thoughts.

I strongly disagree with the idea that sites should be shut down. I can only think of one or two cases when this could be acceptable.

I disagree with scam sites being shutdown, I don't understand how anyone thinks they have the right to do that, the only thing they should be allowed to do is remove copyrighted material, such as company logo's etc. If someone gets fooled by a well designed web page, then hats off to the developer.

I think someone also mentioned that the police should not have this power, but an individual authority who holds no other power, thus is less likely to be bias, alternatively, a machine should take this role.

The idea that the host country controls wether the website is taken down or not seems logical, but It also means that countries with less strict laws will get a huge increase in the amount of sites they host.

Just my 2 pennies.

Bodsda

[nolag]

Police seek powers to shut websites
you agree or disagree?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11845961

I disagree gives them too much power.

I agree with it, as long as the site is hosted in their country (or have a .cctld that is their country), and they have a warrent. If you live somewhere you need to obay the laws (or if you use services provided by a country indirectly), if you run a company there you do to. If you are hosted elsewhere, but your site breaks the law in country X, then with a warrent, country X should be able to ban the site from their country. This is just like how a country can ban a company from entering it, or people. I think a country should have the ability to block things that are illegal in them. The hardest question is if you live in country X but are not hosted their or using their cctld. Then it is like when you own an offshore company that is doing something illegal, I don't know what I think of that...

[ki4jgt]

This is exactly why I tried to develop my own internet here a while back that plus the fact that Obama tried to get an Internet kill switch for the entire country. Haven't got all the bugs worked out yet but am trying to write something like this in Python:



- Every user could potentially get an unlimited connection
- Every Server (Website) could have an unlimited connection to everyone using it!
- Every server (Website) could have the ability to experience 100% uptime
- All communications could be completely confidential between the two individuals talking and no one else.
- All using the current set of protocols we are currently using (TCP/IP)
- No one could monitor your communications
- HTML could be made simpler and still maintain it's (complete) functionality
- The Internet could be FREE (No Price)
- While maintaining proper authentication protocols (people would still be able to be traced for illegal stuff)


I believe it's possible since I'm the one who's going to be devoting time to it, I can believe what ever I want about it. o and unlimited is really limited by the end user's connection, but other than that it's all good.

[Barrucadu]

This is exactly why I tried to develop my own internet here a while back that plus the fact that Obama tried to get an Internet kill switch for the entire country. Haven't got all the bugs worked out yet but am trying to write something like this in Python:

Sorry to be pedantic, but I assume you mean develop your own web. Developing your own Internet would require laying your own cables and suchlike globally. It's a misuse of terminology that bugs me >.>


I believe it's possible since I'm the one who's going to be devoting time to it, I can believe what ever I want about it. o and unlimited is really limited by the end user's connection, but other than that it's all good.

Since the WikiLeaks fiasco started I've actually had some interesting thoughts in this area, specifically, regarding a BitTorrent and HTTP-based file distribution network - similar in principle to the current Web, but making censorship nigh-impossible. I have detailed most of my ideas in the README.md file here: https://github.com/Barrucadu/W2P

[ki4jgt]

I've detailed all my ideas on this a long time ago

http://forum.codecall.net/general-programming/32018-network-encryption-programing.html

[nolag]

I've detailed all my ideas on this a long time ago

http://forum.codecall.net/general-programming/32018-network-encryption-programing.html

I agree with "unlimited" bandwidth, well unmettered (they don't mesure your max is the fastest your internet can go, so if you have a 5MB/s connection you could use that all the time and pay no more). Free internet...HOW? It costs money to bring it to people's homes. Support costs $. I can't agree with much else there. Why only those protocalls?

100% uptime... That is the goal, but computers have problems, hence they go down. Hardware problems, software problems, you can't be like 100%.

[ki4jgt]

That's where Freenet comes in. This internet has no individual servers the Internet itself is hosted by everyone on it. All information is constantly moving from one computer to another so if yours goes down, other's will host your site for you until you get back online. If someone sends you form data, it will be encrypted and routed through the internet until you can receive it again. Your databases could be hosted by several trusted computers on the network.

[uRock]

I believe that any site evidenced to promote illegal activity be shut down. This includes, but not limited to, scam sites, any site that violates copyrights, any site that host illegal porn, any site that promotes terrorism, and any social client site that does not block terrorist groups.

Further more. ISPs should be forced to have hardware in place that detects malware in progress, such as DoS, Ping of Death, or any other type of network based attack. Once an end user has been detected as having this malware, the ISP should not just have the right, but be required to disconnect the service to said end user for a temporary period of time with notification to clean their systems. If the end user goes back on line and the same problems continue, then the end user should be reported to a higher authority and legal action taken.

The information highway should be treated the same as a paved highway. If users/drivers can't maintain their vehicle/PC to operate safely, then the ability to use the highway service should be denied.

Just my 2 cents.

[bouncingwilf]

I see there are some strong points of view but an I think we should fall back on Magna Carta and stipulate no-one should be punished without due process ( i.e. a fair trial). It's so easy to justify these incursions on our liberties - so hard to claw same liberties back!

My view is less "police state" interference but much harsher penalties - handed out by a court - for those who are proven to act against the vulnerable/inept in society.

Bouncingwilf

[MisterGaribaldi]

Three things:


I believe in the independent sovereignty of nations (read: states) to govern themselves, and short of the worst offenses (committing genocide, or wantonly attacking their neighbors, for instance) it isn't any outsider's business what they do;
Any body with the power to give you whatever you want inherently has the power to take anything you have;
That government governs best which governs least.

[nolag]

Three things:


I believe in the independent sovereignty of nations (read: states) to govern themselves, and short of the worst offenses (committing genocide, or wantonly attacking their neighbors, for instance) it isn't any outsider's business what they do;
Any body with the power to give you whatever you want inherently has the power to take anything you have;
That government governs best which governs least.


They need to regulate all offences. Who will defend you if someone robs you (petty theft) if the government does not? The governments that govern the least don't offer schools, or anything. Who will build your roads, hospitals, etc?


This is exactly why I tried to develop my own internet here a while back that plus the fact that Obama tried to get an Internet kill switch for the entire country. Haven't got all the bugs worked out yet but am trying to write something like this in Python:



- Every user could potentially get an unlimited connection
- Every Server (Website) could have an unlimited connection to everyone using it!
- Every server (Website) could have the ability to experience 100% uptime
- All communications could be completely confidential between the two individuals talking and no one else.
- All using the current set of protocols we are currently using (TCP/IP)
- No one could monitor your communications
- HTML could be made simpler and still maintain it's (complete) functionality
- The Internet could be FREE (No Price)
- While maintaining proper authentication protocols (people would still be able to be traced for illegal stuff)


I believe it's possible since I'm the one who's going to be devoting time to it, I can believe what ever I want about it. o and unlimited is really limited by the end user's connection, but other than that it's all good.

You can't offer someone unlimited anything if you are not the ISP. You can't offer 100% uptime (I stated before, but I missed your post) because of hardware and software errors.

[red_Marvin]

I believe that any site evidenced to promote illegal activity be shut down. This includes, but not limited to, scam sites, any site that violates copyrights, any site that host illegal porn, any site that promotes terrorism, and any social client site that does not block terrorist groups.

But illegal where?
The least common denominator of laws would be pretty toothles, and the sum of them would be unbearable.
Country based filtering opens up for what China is doing towards it's inhabitants regarding free speech.

[uRock]

But illegal where?
The least common denominator of laws would be pretty toothles, and the sum of them would be unbearable.
Country based filtering opens up for what China is doing towards it's inhabitants regarding free speech.
Of course a Government can only shut down violators within their own territories.

[NCLI]

it's a touchy subject and one not easily discussed here. Myself like everyone must keep in mind the Forum COC.

There is a lot I would like to say, and my views would surprise many but on my hands I shall be seated.

Fair enough.

[ki4jgt]

they need to regulate all offences. Who will defend you if someone robs you (petty theft) if the government does not? The governments that govern the least don't offer schools, or anything. Who will build your roads, hospitals, etc?



You can't offer someone unlimited anything if you are not the isp. You can't offer 100% uptime (i stated before, but i missed your post) because of hardware and software errors.

there is no isp. You're the isp

[mips]

Of course a Government can only shut down violators within their own territories.

We've seen what can happen when a single government exercises the majority of control over top level domains/DNS infrastructure and as it currently stands they are not in favour of relinquishing control for a more distributed system. I won't mention the country but we all know which one I'm talking about.

[I'mGeorge]

I disagree gives them too much power.

I totally agree with it 'cause I really don't care. I wonder how did we managed to live our lives until the midd '90s, when internet literally started to spread world wide ? Someone can have power over you through internet only if you allow it to happen.

If you're not careful when you're making a profile on facebook, myspace,twitter and so on, and you put a lot of personal data in such profiles than someone might take advantage of it, and it's only your fault because that happened.

Internet it's a good thing, unless your identity becomes too dependent on it. I never understood that mentality when somebody makes a personal profile on facebook so he could make 2000 friends that he actually doesn't really knows and most likely he/she won't meet any of them in real life. As for real friends you don't really have to be friends with them on internet too.

Anyway I think somebody should have the rights to make sure that some harmful materials (uploaded by sick bastards) don't propagate through internet. As far as I know even those that have torrent sites in custody are willingly to work with the police when someone uploads harmful materials that a normal human being should be definitely against them.

[pveurshout]

As has been discussed before, the only authority that should be able to shut down websites should be an independent judge in my opinion. Never, and I mean absolutely never, under no circumstances, should the executive branch of government be given the power to unilaterally censor the public. Even if we assume their complete integrity (definately not the case!) mistakes can and will be made, especially by people who truly believe they're doing the right thing. In case of doubt, don't shut it down. The damage done by too much censoring is an order of a magnitude larger than the damage done by too little censoring..

[Sporkman]

That government governs best which governs least.


You would love the government of Somalia.