// Home / News

BT resists move to make ISPs block extremist content

By Stewart Mitchell

Posted on 7 Feb 2012 at 09:08

The UK's biggest ISP and rights groups have cautioned against plans to clamp down on extremist materials online.

The concerns follow a report by the Home Affairs Committee, which called for ISPs to play a greater role in monitoring and blocking content that could promote radicalism in the UK.

“Although there are statutory powers under the Terrorism Act 2006 for law enforcement agencies to order unlawful material to be removed from the internet, the Committee recommends that internet service providers themselves should be more active in monitoring the material they host, with appropriate guidance, advice and support from the Government,” a Home Affairs Committee report said.

“The Government should work with internet providers to develop a code of practice for the removal of material which promotes violent extremism.”

the committee should not be advocating 'codes of conduct' but examining what the law says

But, as with copyright-infringing material, BT says ISPs should not be placed in a position where they have to decide what content is lawful and what is not, and called for the courts to use powers already created with the Terrorism Act.

“ISPs are not in a position to make legal judgements on what constitutes terrorism, extremism or radicalisation,” BT said in a statement. “It is not for ISPs to proactively monitor material available online.

"There are privacy and freedom of expression implications as well as the more practical consideration of the sheer volume of content online.

"The current approach of notice and takedown, which takes place within the legislative framework (with auditing and oversight), is the most effective and practical solution.”

The select committee had cited the conviction last week of four UK men radicalised over the internet who plotted to bomb the London Stock Exchange and said “more resources need to be directed to these threats and to preventing radicalisation through the internet”.

Regulation creep

However, critics believe that the goal could be achieved using existing regulation.

BT said it complied with all legislation and co-operated with law enforcement agencies, adding that under the Terrorism Act it operates “a takedown policy for websites when required to do so".

"The law enforcement agencies determine what content falls within the Act and notify us through the appropriate single point of contact arrangements with them.”

Rights groups were equally concerned by the proposed clean-up, claiming the measures could be a sign of regulation creep and could result in content being blocked without a judicial process.

"Very little can be done to take down websites that are extreme: because they are rarely hosted in the UK,” said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group. “The alternative to takedown is censorship, which is both ineffective and hands a propaganda victory to the targets of that censorship.

"The committee should not be advocating 'codes of conduct' but examining what the law says. If the UK really wants censorship, the minimum should be that it takes place through the courts."

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

Court Order...

Without one of those, the ISPs shouldn do a bl**dy thing to block content.

For once I agree with what BT are doing / proposing.

I might not agree with extremist points of view and wish that they didn't exist, but if I banned them, who is to say that somebody doesn't take objection to what I say and gets me banned?

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

By big_D on 7 Feb 2012

Who gets to define what is extremist?

BT are totally in the right here.

One man's evolution theory is another man's unspeakable heresy.

While I don't think genuine hate crime and terrorism should be swept under the carpet, it's far better to be policed by the rule of law, than arbitrarily blocked at the whim of some unelected censor.

It's a slippery slope we've already seen he start of with blocking of torrent sites, not because they BREAK ANY LAW, but because a rich corporate interest wants them blocked and have the lawyers and MP's on the payroll to make it happen.

By cheysuli on 7 Feb 2012

Arbitrary blocking

by unelected censors already occurs with child porn and nobody speaks out for fear of being stigmatised. The day the Daily Mail convince their readership that extremism is equally abhorrent is the day that function will creep.
Since extremism is the Daily Mail reader's staple diet, that particular irony would be worthy of a prize.

By dubiou on 7 Feb 2012

Dubious analogy...

Firstly dubiou, I just want to state that there is no such thing as 'child porn'. The thing that people continuously refer to as 'child pornography' is simply recorded evidence of the crimes of 'child abuse', plain and simple. I wish the term would die, (along with the criminals who perpetrate the crimes).

As for 'unelected' people blocking it, so what? Possessing, hosting or sharing such material is a clear, obvious and unambiguous breach of the law. You think it shouldn't be blocked for reasons of free speech? I'm not 'stigmatising' you, but please explain your rationale behind that, because I don't understand it.

As for what the ISP's are defending against here, it is ENTIRELY different from your example - as much of what they are being asked to filter are NOT clear and obvious breaches of the law, but as the first two posters pointed out, in many cases a difficult matter of opinion and judgement. The ISP's, quite rightly, don't want that burden of responsibility.

If the Home Affairs Committee think it is such a problem then they should set up a special task force to monitor for such material, so that it can be dealt with in the judicial system. If they think they can't afford that financially, they should look at levying a tax on broadband connections to pay for it.

What they should NOT be doing is palming the responsibility, (and liability) of the problem off onto someone else.

By Mr_John_T on 7 Feb 2012

Cyber Ghost VPN

Cyber Ghost VPN will avoid online tracking, protects against internet eavesdropping, connect securely from public Wi-Fi, therefore all these measures that ISP’s implement, censoring websites are pretty academic, if there is a will there is a way around website blocking.

By Chrisfjr1300 on 8 Feb 2012

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.