UK exploring national Internet filter to BLOCK IP address and websites

[marinegirl]

Senior official says UK exploring national Internet filter to BLOCK IP address and websites

Submitted by IWB, on September 15th, 2016

GCHQ’s cyber boss went to Washington on Tuesday armed with a long wishlist for the UK’s eavesdropping nerve centre: chief among them was to scale up DNS filtering to block “known malware and bad addresses”.
The scheme, which is still in the early planning stages, would see major United Kingdom service providers working alongside GCHQ in a voluntary capacity to help filter malicious website domains that could potentially be used by hackers or state-sponsored rivals to infect computer systems.
Read more here
http://marygreeley.com/?page_id=36366

 

http://investmentwatchblog.com/fbi-granted-powers-to-hack-unlimited-computers-by-december/

 

Nice of them to look after us don,t you think?

[straycat19]

47 minutes ago, marinegirl said:

Nice of them to look after us don,t you think?

 

Absolutely.  I would like to see borders setup on the internet so that no communication could take place outside of a country's borders.  In the UK they could access any site physically located in the UK but would not have access to any  other site on the internet and the same for every other country.  And I think one day that a version of that concept, with limited interconnectivity at government levels, will become a reality.  That would alleviate many of the crimes taking place today that are brought on by the internet and it would become a more intellectual tool, like a library.

[marinegirl]

Yes i agree.

 

[Chancer]

It will never happen.

They might try but coders will find a way round.

Long live freedom of speech (whether by mouth or electronic transmission)

[SnakeMasteR]

 

Absolutely.  I would like to see borders setup on the internet so that no communication could take place outside of a country's borders.  In the UK they could access any site physically located in the UK but would not have access to any  other site on the internet and the same for every other country.  And I think one day that a version of that concept, with limited interconnectivity at government levels, will become a reality.  That would alleviate many of the crimes taking place today that are brought on by the internet and it would become a more intellectual tool, like a library.

You have very hypocrisy dreams, especially since you leech and suck up the freedom you want to see removed for others. I'm almost inclined to call you a second hand troll, at best. But such a border setup would indeed have something good, others would see less maniacs like you are and you would see more of your own sort, fits and is fair. Instead of being here, why aren't you in the library and shit? LMAO.

[marinegirl]

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS

Potential Litigation? YouTube Is Not Private and Its Censorship Is Government Policy

By Daily Bell Staff - September 05, 2016

• 
• 

A number of users called YouTube’s actions a threat to free speech, although the company technically isn’t bound by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, since it is a business and not an arm of the government. Like Facebook, it can remove whatever content it wants to. More than anything, however, the dispute reinforces how much of our public speech and behavior is now controlled by large corporations and platforms such as Google and Facebook. – Fortune

YouTube is demonetizing videos and willing YouTube creators are expressing shock and dismay.

But why are the surprised? YouTube is part of Google and Google is part of the CIA.

The US is run by intelligence agencies that control both Congress and the Presidency. In turn, DC – and London’s City – control the relevant intel agencies and technology and information companies like Google and Facebook.

Facebook is already active in the text removal business and now YouTube is becoming more aggressive. The mainstream media response to what these “companies” are doing is that they are not part of government and can do what they wish, absent shareholder pressure.

But this isn’t true.

They are not private companies. They are government/CIA enterprises. Just look at the history of these companies.

The founders of Google apparently worked for US intel or the military before founding Google. And the CIA funded Facebook with millions when it was just a startup.

Here’s a comment on Google from the crowd-funded Insurge Intelligence site (here):

How the CIA made Google … How the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.

Facebook, like Google, is part of this process as we wrote here:

A company like Facebook is not responsible to its shareholders. If CEO Mark Zuckerberg were to stop collecting information for the CIA, he would be shoved rudely out the door or worse.

We wrote this about Facebook’s initial funding (here):

The second investment in Facebook came from an individual closely associated with the CIA. It was a huge amount for a start-up, some $12 million.

There’s probably a lawsuit here, were anyone courageous enough to pursue it. Facebook, YouTube (and ultimately Google) are surely acting on instructions of the US government when it comes to reducing and removing content that they claim is “objectionable.”

In other words, what appears to be some sort of weird business decision when it comes to YouTube is part of a larger government program.

YouTube is removing monetization from videos that have sexual content or connotations. But the sexual aspects of YouTube’s activities are merely to cover up the real reason to remove or demonetize videos, which has to do with their political content.

YouTube’s ploy is similar to David Cameron’s when he demanded that vendors ask customers for proactive signatures before providing with websites that included sexual content. There was a list of such sites, but eventually it was reported that there were a number of non-pornographic sites on the list – simply non-traditional or alternative websites that the British government wanted to make less available.

If one wanted to do more than complain, a lawsuit is an obvious possibility. These companies have been marketed publicly as primarily business enterprises when in fact they are pieces of a larger US intelligence apparatus.

Conclusion: One can therefore argue that Vloggers who have done business with YouTube have become involved under false pretenses. They thought they were contributing to a normal business, but in fact their presentations are being evaluated from the standpoint of whether or not they support the current US technocracy.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/potential-litigation-youtube-is-not-private-and-its-censorship-is-government-policy/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-15/youtube-has-quietly-begun-censoring-journalists-who-criticize-government

relevant article,s on the subject of censorship..

[humble3d]

Private conduct can become so entwined with government as to make the

equal protection and due process clauses of The Federal Constitution applicable...

 

The US Supreme Court has extended the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment to private actors when they become so entwined with state or local government that they become, in effect, state actors. In Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001), the Court held that a state athletic association was so closely connected with the public schools as to become a state actor. The association sought to curtail the alleged football recruiting abuses of Brentwood Academy, a private school with a very successful football program.

 

Brentwood Academy sued the association and alleged that it had violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The association was not a part of state government, but the Supreme Court held that the state had delegated authority to regulate school athletic programs to the organization. The Court applied the general principle where there is such a "close nexus between the State and the challenged action," seemingly private behavior "may be fairly treated as that of the State itself."