<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Fw: Comming attractions in other countries? - UK Government Seeks New Web Censorship Powers
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ga] Fw: Comming attractions in other countries? - UK Government Seeks New Web Censorship Powers
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:43:49 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Dec 17, 2009 4:39 PM
>To: governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Comming attractions in other countries? - UK Government Seeks New Web
>Censorship Powers
>
>All,
>
> Is this a comming attraction in your country? Well let's
>hope not. But it seems that a number of nations are seriously
>considering it.
>
>See:https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/16/1653218/UK-Government-Seeks-New-Web-Censorship-Powe
>
>Given the recent coverage and controversy over Australia's forthcoming
>web censorship system, it is somewhat surprising (and worrying) that
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j158
>Clause 11 of the UK's proposed
>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.i-ii.html
>Digital Economy Bill seems to have
>http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2009/12/government-wants-new-powers-to-block.html
>gone by largely unnoticed. It amends the Communications Act 2003 to insert a
>new section 124H that could give the Secretary of State powers to order
>ISPs to block pretty much any website for pretty much any reason. Such
>orders would not require the scrutiny of parliament, or anyone else for
>that matter, because the Secretary of State would not be required to
>publish them.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> Abraham Lincoln
>
>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>===============================================================
>Updated 1/26/04
>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Phone: 214-244-4827
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|