CleanIT wants to censor EU Internet for "anti-terrorism"

...Yeah, you know the drill: The Internet is threatened again, this time it's also non-legislative, but for ANTI-TERRORISM!!! For the London victims! (Or 11.09, but it's an EU initiative, so...)

Except that it totally violates the EU rights charter.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/...errorists/

http://www.cleanitproject.eu/

O god...

It's even developed in my country D:

Well, now that child pornography has failed as an argument for internet censorship, they're trying it with terrorism.

If that fails, next try will be using the nazis (like in the past)... and that WILL work.

At least, I predict that the nazis will be used successfully as an argument to extend copyright beyond 70 years after the author's death within the next three years. Mainly because of some book Bavaria holds the copyright on, which will expire 2015 according to the current laws...

Only the [terrorists|racists|pirates] have something to hide, the rest of us should be happy that the state is looking after us.

> Mainly because of some book Bavaria holds the copyright on,

Does Bavarian copyright control extend beyond its borders?

Huh. I see net neutrality is getting dangerously close to Godwin's Threshold.

... Mainly because of some book Bavaria holds the copyright on, which will expire 2015 according to the current laws...

Like they did in USA when they found out Mickey Mouse would fall out of copyright protection soon? The "Disney" amendment... wonder what they'll call the Bavarian amendment...

What we really need is a law that makes any kind of internet censorship forbidden. Without that 'they' will try time after time until the public will grow tired or just plainly won't be aware and they'll succeed.

We have such a law that basically reads "There is no censorship" in the constitution.

The issue is rather the definition of what is censorship and what isn't.

... and another problem is that the term "There is no censorship" is only part of the German constitution. The internet is available from all over the world and laws are different in every country. China e.g. hasn´t such a term iirc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC42awe6dqo
lol now wait for hitler's cleanIT rant + if mepper sez its developed in germany even worse

Actually Mepper is from the Netherlands.

What we really need is a law that makes any kind of internet censorship forbidden. Without that 'they' will try time after time until the public will grow tired or just plainly won't be aware and they'll succeed.

Great idea. Do you have another great idea how can we implement it?

What we really need is a law that makes any kind of internet censorship forbidden. Without that 'they' will try time after time until the public will grow tired or just plainly won't be aware and they'll succeed.

Great idea. Do you have another great idea how can we implement it?

I heard from the ppl from NGO's that they are already working with the EU officials on something just like this. But this will take time. Till then we need to stay focused and protest those acta-likes to hell!

This really isn't too dissimilar to what already happens with blocking child porn. If a site is pushing something illegal then the host does have the right and duty to shut them down already, there is nothing new about blocking material deemed hateful to others. I'm sure many of you will remember a certain person and his 'special' brand of gender relations material that he has produced. You wouldn't want that to continue that being hosted would you? What is additional here is that there is an official reporting mechanism.

Why it should be thought that this is a threat to anyone not doing anything that is already illegal is far fetched.

@edh: Child porn is already banned and there are means to pursue & punish the ppl behind it. These laws don't have anything to do with child porn or terrorism, their only purpose is to control information available to ppl. With such laws in place 'they' could call anything (e.g. information about a protest against some new bad law or other political antagonistic ideas) that it's 'child porn'/'terrorism'/'insert keyphrase here' and have it taken down without any verification.

With such laws in place 'they' could call anything (e.g. information about a protest against some new bad law or other political antagonistic ideas) that it's 'child porn'/'terrorism'/'insert keyphrase here' and have it taken down without any verification.

I can make a citizens arrest without verification. Of course it does mean that I would run the risk of being charged with wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and a few other things. This is why people rarely abuse it. You don't see people going round citizens arresting anyone they disagree with do you?

If you consider it unjust that your site gets pulled then take the host to court for breach of contract and damages. You would obviously keep a backup copy of your site anyway and this would serve as evidence of no law breaking. There is always the right to make a legal challenge and the risk of making false accusations will be self-regulating.

There are many occasions when such laws could be very useful. Civil unrest has been a major problem in many European countries over the last few years and this is often organised on the Internet. People do have a right to peaceful protest and it is OK for them to organise that on the Internet. When however you have people setting out to organise en-masse lawbreaking then they are already breaking the law by inciting such behaviour. Making it easier to shut them down is overdue.

Civil unrest is the cause of this. Civil unrest is there because the governments are going overboard with power and ppl are fed up with it. Hence the governments want to limit that.

We are on the brink of a revolution here and they know it. It's gonna happen sooner or later, but the sooner the better. Personally I'm hoping for something Iceland-style. (have you noticed that none of the mainstream media report anything that happens in Iceland? it's because the ppl have won there and the governments don't want anybody to know that)

Back to the topic - you shouldn't have to prove that you are innocent - "innocent until proven guilty" has been the core of law since hundreds of years. BTW: I don't know where are you from, but courts are hell expensive here in Europe, that's why rarely anybody sues anybody else over anything. So it's not any comfort that you can take somebody to court, cause you probably will end up homeless in the process (the case is going to take years and it constantly costs loads of cash).

Besides - there are laws against child porn and terrorism already - there is no need for more of them. New useless laws are made when the politicians are bored → they are bored cause they have nothing to do → they have nothing to do cause everything's been done → cause there are way too many politicians and we need to get rid of at least some of them → civil unrest & protests.

(note: in case you are wondering - my political views are summarized as 'individualistic anarchism') :-)

I might got a bit carried away with what I've written above. Sorry, but you need to see that they are the enemies, not the supposed terrorists or whoever they say. It's the same deal they were doing throughout history, only the keyword is changing. There were the jews, the nazis, the russians, terrorists, child porn... for what I know, tomorrow the keyword might be you or me.

Civil unrest is there because the governments are going overboard with power and ppl are fed up with it.

Civil unrest is caused by a tiny minority. Ther majority of the population do not support it. Within a democracy you have the right to peaceful protest, you do not have the right to riot. If you don't like the government then you must accept that the democratic route has to be followed to replace them.

We are on the brink of a revolution here and they know it.

We're not on the 'brink of a revolution'. These groups are in the minority. The majority of people are more or less happy with the status quo. The silent majority is always ignored by the militant minority who assume that everyone else is also a communist. Many people have proper jobs built around the system that we are in. I'm sure you would dismiss them (and I included) as 'decadent capatalists'?

Personally I'm hoping for something Iceland-style. (have you noticed that none of the mainstream media report anything that happens in Iceland? it's because the ppl have won there and the governments don't want anybody to know that)

Iceland was a democratic election. Not a revolution. The fact that they are choosing such an isolationalist financial policy is shortsighted and they simply won't attract external business. Worse still is the situation in France where a socialist government has been elected on an anti-austerity manifesto of reversing policies of the previous government. Lowering retirement age is no way to save money, especially when people are living longer and longer. It might be popular in the short-term but it shows how too many people on the political left live for the moment rather than the long term.

Back to the topic - you shouldn't have to prove that you are innocent

Yes, which makes it self-regulating. The ramifications of making a false accusation are very serious. There are many regulations on what you can and can't print but you don't find publishers holding back printruns that they don't agree with as the commercial ramifications are very great.

BTW: I don't know where are you from, but courts are hell expensive here in Europe, that's why rarely anybody sues anybody else over anything. So it's not any comfort that you can take somebody to court, cause you probably will end up homeless in the process (the case is going to take years and it constantly costs loads of cash).

Your understanding here of legal action is not so accurate. If you are a private individual then it is much cheaper for you to go to court than for a company. If you lose the bad press for you is nothing, if you win the bad press could put the other party out of business and they are accutely aware of this risk. That is why most give in at the slightest sign of trouble. First write a letter yourself (and leave out the 'oppressive capatalist pigdog' views, they are not constructive), then if they do not do anything, get a solicitor to write a cease and desist letter. This is small money to do. They will probably settle. If not, go to court and they will still probably chose to settle out of court and you will have your site back on line and be financially better off just through a bit of work.

I'm from the UK and I have gone through this sort of thing before. I have a compromise agreement signed earlier this year with a large company that basically means I get over £10k for not taking them to court. This only took a few days to arrange and they even paid for my solicitors fees (only about £500, that's nothing if a matter is important to you). This is much cheaper for them than going to court.

Besides - there are laws against child porn and terrorism already - there is no need for more of them.

Are there not still children being sold into slavery as part of international child porn rings?!? Unless you are happy with this situation then something more has to be done. Nobody publishes child porn on paper because it would be too easy to get caught and similarly those publishing Jihadist manuals and preaching hate are easy to catch yet on the Internet it is still easy to remain elusive. You would also expect anyone printing such material to be closed down and imprisoned, why do you think that the Internet must remain a special case? If you're happy with child porn rings remaining intact then by all means continue to oppose this 'tool of tsarist oppression'. It is good that this is being done on a supranational basis to break up international groups.

New useless laws are made when the politicians are bored → they are bored cause they have nothing to do → they have nothing to do cause everything's been done → cause there are way too many politicians and we need to get rid of at least some of them → civil unrest & protests.

This is your opinion. There is plenty of work for politicians to do, otherwise we wouldn't be voting for them would we? You don't like them then vote for someone else.

(note: in case you are wondering - my political views are summarized as 'individualistic anarchism') :-)

I would never have guessed. You must however understand that you are in a minority. For reference I might be considered a liberal conservative but one that believes in internationalism and secularism (the US version of conservatism is wierd in this respect). Working in the corporate world teaches you a lot about working with other peoples views and what really is the common good. Individualist anarchism is a view point that I respectfully disagree with and I would hope that you would do the same with mine. By all means call me a decadent capatalist if you wish though, I'll wear it as a badge of honour.

Sorry, but you need to see that they are the enemies, not the supposed terrorists or whoever they say. It's the same deal they were doing throughout history, only the keyword is changing.

This is verging on conspiracy theorism. I don't see the government as my enemy as they are democratically elected. I might not always agree with them and I certainly hated our last government led by that one eyed Scottish idiot but that doesn't mean they are my enemy. The terrorists are my enemy, as are any other criminals including the looters, anarchists, students studying course that clearly are too easy as otherwise they wouldn't have the time to riot, militant tradeunionists and anyone else who wants to start a riot. We had riots last summer ostensibly about 'police oppression' when they shot someone who was armed and dangerous. Really it was just an excuse for scumbags to break into shops and steal some new trainers that they wanted. Certain press outlets blamed it on the typical 'lack of opportunity' reasons somehow trying to turn it back on the government but this is just ridiculous, they were common criminals.

There were the jews, the nazis, the russians, terrorists, child porn... for what I know, tomorrow the keyword might be you or me.

This is getting a little close to Godwin's Law here. I have no fear of being made a 'keyword' as that is simply not realistic. I'm totally happy for anything illegal or anyone doing anything illegal or inciting anything illegal to be made a keyword.

Now, considering your views on anarchy: have you ever driven in the Middle East? For that matter consider somewhere closer to home, Sicily is an example. It's total anarchy. Traffic lights seem to be advisory only, everyone is on the phone, everyone is constantly cutting each other up, there are no obvious rules as everyone is breaking all of them. The only working rule seems to be that the person who hoots the horn first has right of way. This is no way to drive as a northern European. It is stressful, slow, inefficient and dangerous. In the UK things are generaly better but there are still people who push the rules. Doing so can make other people's journeys worse so is selfish. The best roads are managed motorways whereby overhead gantry's and speed cameras are used to manage traffic speed under heavy load. This actually helps speed traffic up by keeping flow constant, making journey times shorter and improving fuel efficiency and safety. This is a fantastic analogy: chaos does not work. Rules are needed for the greater good.

If you disagree with me then go and drive in Lebanon for a day...

Are there not still children being sold into slavery as part of international child porn rings?!? Unless you are happy with this situation then something more has to be done.

How will censorship of child porn sites help to stop producing child porn? It'll just make it harder to get for sick fucks fapping to it (while doing nothing against law).

You would also expect anyone printing such material to be closed down and imprisoned, why do you think that the Internet must remain a special case?

I too think that sick fucks abusing children should be handled accroding to law. But censoring their site in EU is something different, isn't it?

If you're happy with child porn rings remaining intact then by all means continue to oppose this 'tool of tsarist oppression'.

I think that censorship on ISP level will leave these sites intact.

By the way, what is the impact of the terrorist use of Internet? Now I'm scared as fuck...

How will censorship of child porn sites help to stop producing child porn?

Simple rules of supply and demand.

It'll just make it harder to get for sick fucks fapping to it (while doing nothing against law).

Viewing such material is often a gateway to further involvement. If you don't allow people to view it, they are less likely to become a paedophile themselves.

But censoring their site in EU is something different, isn't it?

Why is it any different? Is it just different because for a small minority see it as THEIR domain and they are not happy to see the government enforce control? No one owns the Internet but anyone operating any single part of it must do so within the rules of their juristiction. A better framework that allows that to be enforced is simply filling in a massive legal problem area.

I think that censorship on ISP level will leave these sites intact.

Again, consider rules of supply and demand.

By the way, what is the impact of the terrorist use of Internet?

Spreading jihadist messages can be used to recruit others. After attacks in the UK it is often the case that the perpertrators computers are found to have jihadist materials on them downloaded from the Internet. That's too late to find out. Often we are able to track people beforehand and make arrests but why risk people falling through the net? Stop them from accessing it at all. There's no productive purpose for accessing such material.

Viewing such material is often a gateway to further involvement.

That's your opinion. I don't agree and you can't prove I'm wrong.

They'd be arrested for abusing children on UK soil and ISP spy infrastrucutre is already setup in UK, right?

Why is it any different? Is it just different because for a small minority see it as THEIR domain and they are not happy to see the government enforce control? No one owns the Internet but anyone operating any single part of it must do so within the rules of their juristiction. A better framework that allows that to be enforced is simply filling in a massive legal problem area.

It's different because

1) It establishes very small minority that decides what is right for us to see. Note that this group is even smaller than the "communists" you hate so much in this thread. They may censor gore sites because of "Jihad material". But such sites often show footages that TV is afraid or just doesn't want to show you (crimes of "freedom fighters" in Syria be the example).

2) It doesn't punish child abusers or whatever are you scared of.

Spreading jihadist messages can be used to recruit others. After attacks in the UK it is often the case that the perpertrators computers are found to have jihadist materials on them downloaded from the Internet. That's too late to find out. Often we are able to track people beforehand and make arrests but why risk people falling through the net? Stop them from accessing it at all. There's no productive purpose for accessing such material.

What if someone wants to see jihadist messages to study their behaviour, to write an article about it on Wikipedia, warn others, ... ?

And by the way, child porn addicts will just use proxies to work around ISP censhorship. I wonder what penalty will ISPs receive for ignoring those CleanIT guidelines.

How will censorship of child porn sites help to stop producing child porn?

Simple rules of supply and demand.

I'd say supply & demand will get you the opposite effect - with less pictures to view, the pedos will try to find more material & probably will try to produce some themselves. On the other hand setting up an archive of already produced CP (moral and legal issues aside) for the pedos to view would have that demand fulfilled.

Aside of theories I won't accept limiting my freedom just to maybe protect a hypothetical someone from a hypothetical enemy. Especially on the internet, which should be completely independent of any jurisdiction, like in the good old days. If you don't remember the net from that time then take a look at Freenet - it's an isolated network governed by people who use it themselves and (surprise) you don't trip over CP or terrorist messages if you don't go specifically looking for them.

That's your opinion. I don't agree and you can't prove I'm wrong.

Ditto, that's your opinion and you can't prove that you're right. However if you'd like to come up with a detailed explanation of why a well researched policy change might be wrong, please contact the EU about it. Wingeing and moaning about net neutrality doesn't get you anywhere unless you have some fact to back it up. Stating ideology is not the same as fact. Governments are well advised on crime and making such a move will not be taken lightly.

They'd be arrested for abusing children on UK soil and ISP spy infrastrucutre is already setup in UK, right?

We're pretty good at catching them but as these are international rings clearly some action has to be taken supranationally, hence the EU plan being good.

1) It establishes very small minority that decides what is right for us to see.

And TV, radio, newspapers, DVD's are also screend by a small minority that you fear will oppress you. Why should the Internet be seen as a special case?

What if someone wants to see jihadist messages to study their behaviour, to write an article about it on Wikipedia, warn others, ... ?

Yes, that's a pretty mainstream need you've zero'd in on there. Take a look through the Wikipedia page on al-Qaeda and you see that the references are all mainstream media sites and publications, no Jihadist references there and they wouldn't stand up anyway as reliable sources. No one researching Al-Qaeda would look at Jihadist websites to do their research. And I'll stick to the security services issuing security warnings thanks rather than researching them myself and posting them on Facebook/4Chan/Craigslist/Icanhascheezburger. Seriously? Would you really use a Google I'm Feeling Lucky search for Jihad, see what comes up and assume that we're doomed and spam the Internet to warn others?!?

I'm not going to agree with you on this ever so we have to accept that we have a difference of opinion.

Most of them using Tor and/or Freenet anyway I guess.