U.K. cops want to attack terrorism Web sites

[Lori Price CLG]

U.K. cops want to attack terrorism Web sites

British chief police officers are asking the U.K. government for new powers that would allow them to attack terrorist (?!?) Web sites.

A list of antiterror recommendations from the Association of Chief Police Officers has been handed to Members of Parliament in the wake of the London bombings this month, as the government reviews laws on how to tackle terrorism.

Under the proposals, it would become an offense to fail to disclose encryption keys and to use the Internet to facilitate acts of terrorism.

<snip>

Lori Price

[SteppingRazor]

1. I'm sure this has frustrated law enforcement for quite a while

Terrorists these days almost always claim responsibility through Web site statements, but nothing can be done about these Web sites.

Then again, SHOULD anything be done about these Web sites? An argument can be made that:
1) They help us track terrorists and
2) Disgusting as it is, is this a free speech issue?

[Lori Price CLG]

2. BTW, what is a 'terrorist' website? n/t

[wli]

4. oh boy as if "terrorist" weren't foggy enough

Sure, incitement to violence is bad, but this is certain to be abused. Incitement to violence on webpages should already be prosecutable just about everywhere as things already stand, just as any threat of violence is when spoken or written on paper.

[sweetheart]

6. Given common law britain

I'd expect this to be defined "in principals" letting the
courts work out what exactly it means in specific.

[ConfuZed]

8. I'm sure the RIAA & MPAA will have a hand in defining terrorist websites

:)

[Hav]

3. Aiming between and ?

Sorry, that was lame and insensitive...

[Eugene]

5. The police are asking to take the law into their own hands.

And attacking an overseas website is warfare.
It also sets a bad example for repressive regimes
for taking down sites they don't like.

The article also includes some well stated
concerns from critics.

[bennywhale]

7. I would have less of a problem with all these new laws being passed

even the more draconian laws if they were stipulated to be temporary, and up for review once every couple of years or even five to ten years.

The problem is this open ended "war" is going to allow decades of chipping away at freedom so when the day comes that its defeated (that day may not come) we may have nothing left to defend.

[ovidsen]

9. Tilting at windmills.

This will never work. "Terrorists" in Afghanistan will load up a web server in China or Uzbekistan which can be accessed by anyone with a computer and Internet connection anywhere. As for disclosing encryption keys? Go ahead... make them. Ha ha.

[pinniped]

10. Where the hell are they gonna get their info now?

All of the stories about this fictional al-Zarqawi character were allegedly plucked from these militant websites.

[matt819]

11. Okay, it's frustrating, but really. . .

Take a look at the Google Home page: Searching 8,058,044,651 web pages -- that's 8 billion pages. Okay, go after the terrorist websites. Don't you think they have more than a few places to hide? To say nothing of private networks (sort of al-Qaeda, Inc.). I know the job is tough, but these sorts of proposals strike me as a waste of time. You go after one (or more) sites, and others will crop up - kind of like the insurgency.

[mbperrin]

12. Doesn't even count the people who think THIS is a terrorist

website, does it?

After all, don't some posters like to strike terror into politicians and other lapdogs?

(Apologies to actual canines everywhere)