Police seek powers to shut websites (94)

Er no. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that judicial review "is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary." (source: Wikipedia)

Since this would be an act by a non-governmental body, it wouldn't be subject to judicial review.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
"You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk dancing." - Sir Arnold Bax

So are you saying it is ok for SOCA to decide who is allowed a uk domain name?

Now, if the article said that SOCA had requested legislation to have uk domain names removed from name servers on production of a warrant then I would have less objections.

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. Abraham Lincoln

Another point is that, in absence of evidence, certain officials (to justify long, fruitless investigation, or maybe pistoff at missing promotion, etc) WILL bust a gut in a huge effort to nail down innocent jelly. Proven by history. Whatever 'legislation' they need to turn to, guilty or not, you'd best bet your bare naked arse it's already in place. eg, on bdsm library.com - - you click (by accident, then click straight off from) an unwanted pop-up (young estonian page3 babes, or whatever) you could be renditioned, without being charged, to 18 months in estonian cell, as a supected paedo .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-133165...

Unlikely, we hopes, but don't doubt the bstrds can't do it.

The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...)

Edited 26 Nov 10, 9:26 PM by SirLashleyS

Loosely worded laws, enacted without sufficient discussion, usually in response to some form of moral panic are one of the most dangerous threats to everyones liberty (kinky or 'nilla). Just because in the past our police force has policed by the consent of most of the people doesn't mean they will continue to do so (or to a degree do so at the moment, depending on your point of view).

While individually some (most/the vast majority depending on your preferences) of the police are sensible, fair and not likely to abuse their power, by giving them as a whole uncontrolled powers we leave ourselves as a society open to being abused by such powers.

"Greebo could, in fact, commit sexual harassment simply by sitting very quietly in the next room." "Maskerade", Sir Terry Pratchett

Sorry, some trains of thought are just too funny. I agree, you could just keep registering your domain in other countries and the obvious one is the caymen islands. I look forward to logging on to www.informedconsent.ky.

ETA corrected stupid spelling error

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. Abraham Lincoln

Edited 26 Nov 10, 10:06 PM by Sirebel

And Fitwatch is a site monitoring criminal and other dubious activity BY the police.

The good news is that it was back up within hours. As someone else said, trying to close down a website is like nailing down jelly. It can be mirrored all over the place.

This is NOT being paranoid - this is common sense. x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucstNtPy0Q&featu...

How many millions of innocent people must be assaulted/humiliated just to nail one crim?

The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...)

Edited 26 Nov 10, 9:53 PM by SirLashleyS

This one is both.

While I thought it was just SOCA making a proposal that would require primary legislation, or at least a statutory instrument, I wasn't bothered. However, if, as @Relaxed1 suggests, they are merely doing a deal re the terms on which Nominet acts, without reference to a change in the law, I'm more concerned.

It is true that you can't control the internet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call the authorities on their attempts to do so.

Whoever mentioned RIPA is spot on. And don't forget stopping people taking pictures of buildings in central London on the basis of anti-terror laws which were never intended for the purpose.

I don't expect R v Brown to survive the next time these issues come up in court, and it may be a long time before they do, as the current DPP would be highly unlikely to sanction prosecution of such a case. But I don't fancy a trip to the Supreme Court to prove the point, and pity the poor bugger who makes that particular bit of legal history.

I generally have no problem with the police, or with SOCA, but if we let their powers grow we can't complain when they are used to the full, because it is inevitable, to the point of gross misuse. Vigilance is the price of freedom, to coin a cliche. Let's not forget.

The police may seek this. You or I may seem this. Any individual or body may seek this.. that is the freedom and the strangth of our society.

The police having authority to unilaterally make such a decsiion is the reverse.. and that is the completely different reality with which you seem to confuse this.

Perhaps shuttimg such sites as they sdesire is correct...others with that elected authority will decide.