Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Friday March 14 2014, @04:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the thin-end-of-the-wedge dept.

Angry Jesus writes:

"The Irish Times reports that Google has given high level censorship powers to government security agencies in the UK.

Google has given British security officials special permissions for its YouTube video site, allowing them to have content instantly reviewed if they think that it threatens national security. They already had the power to request removal illegal content, now they can flag legal but "unsavory" content en masse.

They are in part a response to a blitz from UK security authorities to persuade internet service providers, search engines and social media sites to censor more of their own content for extremist material even if it does not always break existing laws."

Related Stories

UK Government Wants to Punish Social Media Platforms for "Harmful Content" (Again) 20 comments

UK will hold social networks accountable for harmful content

The UK government plans to penalize tech companies like Facebook and Google that fail to curb the spread of harmful content on their platforms. As promised, the country is seeking to empower an independent regulator to enforce the rules which target violent material, posts encouraging suicide, disinformation, cyber-bullying, and child exploitation. Over the coming weeks, the government will consult on the types of punishments available to the new watchdog, including fines, blocking access to sites, and holding senior members of tech companies accountable for their failures.

Both Facebook and Google have previously denied responsibility for the content published on their sites, evoking the communications act in the US to overcome lawsuits accusing them of enabling terrorism and spreading extremist views. But calls for big tech to be regulated have grown in recent years following a spate of controversial incidents, the most recent of which was the live-streaming of the mass shooting in New Zealand on Facebook.

Related: UK Security Agents Get Censoring Privs at Youtube
UK ISPs Block Sites that List Pirate Bay Proxies
Website Blocking and Unblocking on Opposite Sides of the World
UK Prime Minister Repeats Calls to Limit Encryption, End Internet "Safe Spaces"


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Friday March 14 2014, @04:14PM

    by wantkitteh (3362) on Friday March 14 2014, @04:14PM (#16479) Homepage Journal

    Someone at YouTube just pulled a Bruce Almighty on these idiots.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PReDiToR on Friday March 14 2014, @04:26PM

    by PReDiToR (3834) on Friday March 14 2014, @04:26PM (#16487) Homepage

    It won't be long until there is a big red button on the bottom of every web page at GCHQ for instant delisting from search engines and ISP level filtering.

    --

    Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by n1 on Friday March 14 2014, @05:18PM

      by n1 (993) on Friday March 14 2014, @05:18PM (#16520) Journal

      I really don't know why your comment was modded funny... It seems prophetic or at least insightful. Unless it's funny because it's already assumed to be the case.

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday March 14 2014, @06:18PM

      by isostatic (365) on Friday March 14 2014, @06:18PM (#16548) Journal

      With their ties to the ISP and Hadrian's firewall, they could do it with a greasemonkey script

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Friday March 14 2014, @04:30PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Friday March 14 2014, @04:30PM (#16490)

    The government has NOT been given censorship powers. They cannot remove content.

    They have "mass flagging" powers, to flag items "en masse" for Google to review. Google retains the actual decision on what content comes down.

    Not that this isn't a step in a potentially bad direction. But it's not (for now) direct government censorship.

    • (Score: 1) by cculpepper on Friday March 14 2014, @04:33PM

      by cculpepper (46) on Friday March 14 2014, @04:33PM (#16493)

      How long befor a "mass flagging" flags Google itself? Then how could we use the Internet?!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by d on Friday March 14 2014, @05:26PM

      by d (523) on Friday March 14 2014, @05:26PM (#16523)

      Yes, and they clearly have the resources needed to review every single of these flags, right?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Friday March 14 2014, @06:28PM

      by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday March 14 2014, @06:28PM (#16554)

      I think you are missing the point -- these new powers are explicitly directed at legal content. If "flagging" it did nothing, the government wouldn't have pursued these privileges in the first place. The fact that they've also streamlined the process is just icing on the cake for the censors.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by lhsi on Friday March 14 2014, @10:27PM

        by lhsi (711) on Friday March 14 2014, @10:27PM (#16664) Journal
        Here is a relativly clear explanation of it from the Open Rights Group Wiki: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Blocking_of_ extremist_material#YouTube_flagging [openrightsgroup.org]

        In March 2014 it was reported[5][6] in the Financial Times that YouTube had given the Home Office “super flagger†(moderation) powers to enable to flag content in bulk to be reviewed for "Terms of Service" violations. Google have said that its "trusted flagger" tool is available to organisations that flag lots of content (including NGOs) and have a high hitrate for videos that are in violation. The "reporting at scale" is the ability to flag up to ten videos per report. No additional priority is given to these requests over normal flagging[7].

        I think it looks like just an ability to flag more things; any logged in user can flag something now already. Something that is flagged is removed if it breaks the YouTube guidlines only.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Friday March 14 2014, @05:15PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Friday March 14 2014, @05:15PM (#16519)

    now they can flag legal but "unsavory" content en masse.

    I for one am glad they're going to be weeding out so much of the bland Youtube content.

    • (Score: 3) by tangomargarine on Friday March 14 2014, @08:36PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday March 14 2014, @08:36PM (#16618)

      This would be awesome if Google just told its employees to default-deny all flags unless the video contained something obviously blatantly illegal.

      Sigh...a man can dream...

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Saturday March 15 2014, @12:06PM

    by Open4D (371) on Saturday March 15 2014, @12:06PM (#16813) Journal

    British security officials ... to have content instantly reviewed if they think that it threatens national security.

    On reading this I was reminded of the first episode [wikipedia.org] of Black Mirror [wikipedia.org], where the Prime Minister is publicly blackmailed via a You Tube video, despite it being taken down after just 9 minutes.